'  - ''Si;)!)^  nHh!,|l'; >i?j;);Mi;,f ;,;:;' v.^i-  ;.!■;; 'ij;;,;): 


THE  WAY  OUT 


Has  a  Man  a  Right  to  Sell  His  Labor  in  the  Open 
Market  For  Any  Price  He  Pleases?    NO. 

If  He  Does  So,   Does  it  Concern  Anybody  Besides  Himself? 

YES. 


BY   D.  WILMOT   SMITH 


"Don't  read  it.     It  is  bad." — Republican  Press. 
"It  is  a  lie." — Democratic  Press. 

"It  is  heresy." — Religious  Press. 

"It  is  dangerous." — The  Bench. 


DON'T 


WORRY, 


SMITH- 


ITS 


ALL 


RIGHT. 


z*xt.xo£s    as3  oxiNra^s 


THE  JAMES  H.  BARRY 
COMPANY 


D.  WILMOT  SMITH. 


THE  WAY  OUT 


Has  a  Man  a  Right  to  Sell  His  Labor  in  the  Open 
Market  For  Any  Price  He  Pleases?     NO. 

If  He  Does  So,    Does  it  Concern  Anybody  Besides  Himself? 

YES. 


BY   D.   WILMOT    SMITH 


"Don't  read  it.     It  is  bad." — Republican  Press. 
"It  is  a  lie." — Democratic  Press. 

"It  is  heresy." — Religious  Press. 

"It  is  dangerous." — The  Bench. 


\r 


.jy-  '  -'DON'T 


WORRY, 


SMITH- 


ITS 


i^  ALL 


"^      RIGHT." 


.^gg^^^^    THE  JAMES   H.    BARRY 
<T«ojj^p«uj  COMPANY 


Copyright,  1904 
By  D.  AVILMOT  SMITH 


Of?. 


conte:nts. 


Page 


Has  a  man  a  right  to  sell  his  labor  in  the  open  market  for 

any  price  he  plases  1 9 

If  he  does  so,  does  it  concern  anybody  besides  himself  ? . .  9 

Custom  cannot  make  wrong  right 13 

The  beginning  of  the  Custom 15 

Wasted  efforts  and  the  Competitive  System 18 

How  the  doctrine  that  a  man  has  a  right  to  sell  his  labor 

for  any  price  he  pleases,  got  into  the  United  States ....  22 

Let  us  suppose  a  case 25 

Another  case 26 

The    Decision 27 

What  do  you  think  of  it? 31 

They  demand  fair  wages 33 

American  Good  Citizenship 34 

What  President  Roosevelt  and  Mr.  Cleveland  should  have 

said 36 

Has  a  hired  man  any  rights? 39 

A  few  examples  of  the  power  of  employers  over  the  lives 

of  hired  men 43 

No  law  in  Illinois 43 

No   law  in  Louisiana 43 

No  law  in  Pennsylvania 44 

Baer's   letter 45 

Baer  is  denounced 46 

Who  is  right,  Baer  or  his  critics  ? 47 

Another  Cut.     Is  a  Cut  a  Contract  1 49 

No  law  in  New  England 50 

No  law  in  Colorado 50 

A  fool,  a  tool,  a  coward  and  brute 52 

Martial  Law  reigns  in  Cripple  Creek 53 

What  is  your  opinion  1 .  . 57 

Is  this  the  language  of  men  without  a  grievance  ?......  58 

Miners'    organization   treated   with    Contempt  by   Mine 

owners 59 

More  high  handed  injustice 59 

Tlie  Conspiracy  Finally  Exposed 60 

No  law   in   Utah 61 

Persecute   miners   families 62 

No  luiion  man  need  apply 62 

A  forest  the  only  council  chamber  labor  can  afford ....  63 

The  governor  legs  it  for  the  rich 63 

But  what  do  you  think  of  this  1 65 

Even  Mother  Jones  must  be  muzzled 66 

Utah  taxpayers,  think  of  this 66 

Steel  corporation  to  reduce  wages  of  150,000  men 67 

What  all  the  fuss  is  about 68 

262817 


Page 

What  the  law  should  be 70 

People  who  sneer 73 

The  discontent  of  hired  men 75 

What    the    Courts   must    do , 77 

The    business   rule 79 

Attempts  to  cut  out  causes  that  fostered  industrial  wrongs  83 

The  Conmiittee  from  Mars 85 

AVhat    is    ment    by    "right    to    enjoy    life"    etc,    in    the 

Constitution?    ." 110 

Vested   Rights   and   Inalienable   Rights 115 

The  rights  of  Society  and  of  Individuals,  Equal  Rights.  .  118 

Has  Society  a  right  to  \^ape  them  out  ? 120 

How  the  exercise  of  this  alleged  right  did  the  mischief .  .  124 

AVhere  private  fortunes  came  from 124 

Who  uphold  the  wrong 127 

Labor  Unions  stand  for  a  great  fundamental  principle.  .  130 

What  must  take  the  place  of  expedients'? 134 

How  will  you  raise  the  standard  of  individual  excellence  ?  134 

Private  gain  always  at  public  expense 135 

Every  man  has  a  right  to  live  decently 135 

Private  gain  put  before  public  good 136 

Because  Society  refused  to  protect  hired  men  they  formed 

Unions  to  protect  themselves 137 

Public    opinion    as   to    wages    of    Street    Carmen — Tlie 

Chronicle    137 

The  open  market  pen 140 

The  Closed   Shop 143 

The  Open  Shop.    What  does  it  mean  ? 145 

The  object  in  unionizing  labor 148 

The   remedy.  .; 149 

Local  Co-operative  plants  and  stores 153 

The  motive  of  selfishness.     Can  it  be  wiped  out? 154 

What  is  to  be  done  ?    AVhat  can  hired  men  do  ? 159 

The    Brigands 160 

The    Mbuntaineetrs. 161 

Shall  your  children  be  masters  or  slaves  ? 166 

The  AVay  Out 169 


PREFACE. 


If  you  do  not  want  to  hear  Truth,  do  not  read  this  book. 

If  you  love  Truth,  the  book  will  not  offend  you. 

AVhen  anybody  undertakes  to  speak  in  public,  or  write,  con- 
cerning present  industrial  conditions,  those  who  profit  by  the 
conditions  prefer  that  he  does  so  in  such  general  terms  that 
it  amounts  to  twedle-de-de  and  twedle-de-dum,  because 
those  who  listen  or  read,  will  havei  no  more  idea  when  he  has 
finished,  as  to  what  is  to  be  done  to  correct  wrongs,  than  they 
had  before,  and  the  profit-takers  have  no  fear  of  being  dis- 
turbed. !  ■ 

This  book  does  not  discuss  the  wage  question  in  general 
terms  to  befuddle  folks. 

It  says  something,  and  says  it  plainly,  so  all  may  under- 
stand. 

It  strikes  a  chord  not  struck  before. 

It  exposes  a  great  Wrong  that  for  centuries  has  palmed 
itself  off  as  a  great  Right. 

.  It  denies  that  a  man  has  a  right  to  sell  his  labor  in  the 
open  market  for  any  price  he  pleases. 

In  doing  so,  it  tears  the  mask  from  the  face  of  the  devil, 
as  it  were;  who  for  ages  has  deceived  the  people  into  worship- 
ping him  as  God. 

The  exposure  operates  against  the  private  interests  of 
a  selfish  class,  and  naturally  they  do  not  like  it.  Therefore, 
when  you  hear  them  say  hard  things  against  the  book  and 
its  author,  you  will  know  what  ails  them. 

There  are  two  kinds  of  people  in  the  world — one  has  a 
conscience  and  the  other  has  none. 

This  book  was  written  for  the  kind  with  a  conscience. 
That  kind  wants  to  do  right  and  will  be  ruled  by  Reason. 

The  other  kind  don't  want  to  do  right,  unless  they  have 
to  and  can't  be  ruled  except  b.y  Force. 

Force  has  no  effect  on  those  who  demand  Reason,  nor 
has  Reason  any  effect  on  those  who  require  Force ;  therefore, 
the  book  supplies  Eeason  for  one  kind  and  prescribes  Force 
for  the  other. 

Its  scope  is :  The  AVrongs  of  the  Hired  Man ;  His  Rights 
and  Remedies  and  How  Society  is  Concerned. 

His  Wrongs  are:  Unjust  Wages,  Conditions  and  Hours. 

His  Rights  are :  Just  Wages,  Conditions  and  Hours. 

His  Remedy  is:  Law  and  Society  is  concerned  in  protect> 
ing  him  in  order  to  protect  itself. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

D.  WILMOT  SMITH. 

San  Francisco,  Cal.,  August  4,  1904. 


THE    WAY    OUT. 


HAS  A  MAN  A  RIGHT  TO   SELL  HIS  LABOR  IN 
THE  OPEN  MARKET  FOR  ANY  PRICE  HE  PLEASES? 

IF  HE  DOES  SO,  DOES    IT  CONCERN   ANYBODY 
BESIDES  HIMSELF? 

Most  people  would  say:  "Certainly  it  is  his  right,  and  it 
is  Qobody's  business  but  his  own." 

But  do  they  say  this  because  they  know  it,  or  because 
they  have  been  raised  to  think  so  and  because  it  has  been  the 
custom  for  every  man  to  sell  his  labor  for  any  price  he 
pleased? 

It  will  not  always  do  to  uphold  a  thing  because  custom 
has  sanctioned  it,  nor  because  everybody  says  it  is  right ;  and 
this  may  be  one  of  the  things  about  which  people  have  been 
and  are  mistaken.  So  far  as  I  know,  no  one  has  ever  thought 
to  question  it,  nor  has  anyone  gone  down  to  the  root  of  it  and 
laid  bare  the  foundation  principles  for  us  to  look  at  on  which 
it  rests.  Nor  has  anyone  shown  the  relation,  which  the  alleg- 
ed right  bears  to  the  welfare  of  society,  as  a  reason  for  up- 
hold in  g  it.  The  most  that  has  ever  been  said  is  the  generai 
assertion  that  H  is  nght,  and  each  generation  has  repeated  it 
without  any  investigation  to  see  if  it  was  well  founded,  but 
simply  because  others  said  so. 

The  reader  will  remember  that  history  tells  us  the  peo- 
ple at  one  time  thought  the  earth  was  fiat  and  had  four  cor- 
ners. 

They  were  so  sure  of  it  that  when  Giordano  Bruno  in- 
vestigated the  truth  of  the  prevailing  belief  and  told  them  it 
was  not  true;  that  the  earth  was  round  and  had  no  corners 
at  all,  they  got  so  excited  and  angry  that  they  would  not  let 
him  live  and  teach  such  stuff,  so  they  chained  him  to  a  stake 
and  burnt  him  to  death. 

I  do  not  fancy  anybody  would  want  to  burn  me  at  the 
stake  for  disputing  the  right  of  any  man  to  sell  his  labor  for 
any  price  he  pleases,  although  I  expect  to  get  pretty  well 
''roasted"  by  certain  newspapers  for  doing  so. 

I  do  not  take  a  contrary  view  of  this  question  because  I 
wish  to  quarrel  with  anybody,  nor  because  I  wish  notoriety, 
nor  because  I  wish  to  make  money  out  of  it.  I  take  it  be- 
cause after  investigating  the  labor  troubles  that  have  been 
constantly  agitating  the  country,  I  think  I  see  where  the  root 


10  THE   WAY  OUT. 

of  all  the  mischief  is,  and  wish  to  point  it  out,  so  men  in  au- 
thority can  find  it  and  then  get  out  their  legislative  and  judi- 
cial axes  and  go  and  cut  it  off. 

I  realize  I  am  tackling  the  prejudices  of  a  great  many 
people,  but  if  that  root  is  where  I  say  it  is,  and  I  shall  hope 
to  give  reason  sufficient  to  prove  it,  then  it  is  my  duty  to  speak, 
no  matter  what  anybody  or  any  number  of  them  may  say. 

Now,  to  get  a  good,  fair,  square  start,  and  no  misunder- 
standing, you  say  ' '  a  man  has  a  right  to  sell  his  labor  for  any 
price  he  pleases, ' '  and  I  say,  ' '  He  has  no  such  right. ' ' 

Again,  you  say:  "It  concerns  nobody  but  himself,"  and 
I  say:   "It  concerns  ever^^body  as  well  as  himself." 

The  right  answer  to  the  first  proposition  must  depend 
upon  which  is  the  right  answer  to  the  second  proposition ;  for 
if  it  does  not  concern  anybody  besides  himself,  then  you  are 
right  in  saying:  "It  is  his  right  to  sell  his  labor  for  any  price 
he  pleases." 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  as  I  say:  "It  concerns  eveiwbody  as 
well  as  himself,"  then,  as  a  matter  of  course  others,  being  in- 
terested, have  the  right  to  have  something  to  say  as  to  what 
price  he  shall  sell  his  labor  for,  and  if  thei/  have  that  right,  it 
follows  that  he  does  not  have  it. 

Is  that  true  or  not  ? 

The  question  now  is,  icho  are  concerned  in  the  price  a  man 
sells  his  labor  for,  and  how  are  they  concerned  1  I  have  said 
everybody  is  concerned,  and  if  that  is  so  they  naturally  ought 
to  know  and  ought  to  want  to  know  why,  how,  and  all  about  it. 

In  discussing  the  rights  of  those  who  sell  their  labor  and 
how  the  exercise  of  their  privilege  to  do  so  concerns  others 
and  the  relations  that  exist  between  employer  and  employee. 
I  do  not  propose  to  rely  upon  any  goody-goody  rot  to  sustain 
my  case.  I  shall  take  the  ground  right  from  the  start  that, 
under  the  present  system  of  getting  a  living,  no  man  has  been, 
is,  or  will  be  strictly  honest  or  just  in  dealing  with  other  men, 
except  through  fear.  Not  all  fear  the  same  thing,  but  all 
fear  something.  With  some  it  is  public  opinion,  with  others 
the  law,  and  others  hell.  I  shall  insist  that  Force  is  the  only 
power  that  can  be  relied  upon  to  stop  men  from  taking  ad- 
vantage of  each  other  when  they  get  a  chance. 

Oppression,  lying,  cheating  and  stealing  are  born  of 
either  selfishness  or  necessity.  Destroy  these  and  such 
things  will  not  be  heard  of.  Force-law  is  the  only  thing  that 
will  do  it. 

Law  can  make  a  selfish  act  unprofitable  and  when  it  be- 
comes unprofitable  nobodj'^  will  be  selfish,  and  when  no  one  is 
selfish,  necessity  will  be  destroyed. 

Law  is  force,  and  the  object  of  law  is  to  force  people 
to  do  right,  who  will  not  do  right  without  it.  It  don't  coax, 
it  commands;  and  as  there  is  no  wrong  without  a  remedy,  it 
follows  that,  if  selfishness  that  injures  another  is  wrong,  there 
is  a  way  to  stop  it. 


THE   WAY   (UIT.  11 

Can  you  think? 

If  so,  do  it.  Do  not  take  what  I  say  or  Avhat  anyone 
says.  Pick  out  what  is  not  true.  Read  1  Think !  Form 
your  own  opinion.  Do  not  "believe."  Get  a  conviction. 
There  is  force  in  a  conviction,  in  a  belief,  there  is  none.  Rich 
or  poor,  it  is  all  the  same,  if  you  eat  you  are  interested; 
if  you  do  not,  you  are  not.  Now,  the  fact  that  everybody  has 
alA'^^ays  conceded  the  right  of  everybody  else  to  sell  his  labor 
for  any  price  that  pleased  him,  shows  on  its  face  that  nobody 
considered  it  concerned  him  personally;  and,  as  nobody  was 
personally  concerned,  nobody  cared  whether  another  was 
properly  or  improperly  paid.  If  he  starved  it  was  all  right, 
if  he  made  money  it  was  all  right.  In  one  event  he  was 
pitied,  in  the  other  congratulated  or  envied,  and  all  because 
they  were  ignorant  of  the  relation  that  actually  existed  be- 
tween his  thrift  from  receiving  just  wages,  and  their  own. 

If,  however,  they  had  realized  that  when  a  man  consent- 
ed to  work  for  less  than  reasonahle  wages  he  was  not  only 
wronging  himself,  but  them,  too,  they  would  have  felt  differ- 
ently about  it.  They  would  have  interferred  and  put  a  stop 
to  it. 

But  they  did  not  realize  it.  Its  effects  came  to  them 
something  like  the  tariff  on  imports,  which  people  used  to  be 
told  and  believed  was  paid  by  the  foreigner,  who  sold  his 
goods  in  this  country.  They  did  not  think  deep  enougli 
(strange  as  it  may  seem)  to  see  that  the  foreigner  added  the 
duty  to  the  selling  price,  and  when  they  purchased  his  goods 
they  refunded  to  him  the  suras  he  had  paid  as  duties. 

And  so  with  wages;  when  an  employer  got  help  for  less 
than  reasonable  wages,  others  could  not  see  that  to  the  extent 
he  underpaid  his  help  he  kept  in  his  pocket  money  which,  if 
he  had  been  just,  would  have  improved  the  conditions  of 
those  he  hired  by  going  to  them  and  then  into  general  circu- 
lation, thus  helping  all  others  and  preser^dng  a  more  just  dis- 
triburion  of  wealth.  The  present  effect  of  those  things  was 
small,  insidious  and  imperceptible.  It  came— like  the  tariff 
■ — in  such  a  round-about  far-off  way  that  they  did  not  notice  it. 
nor  did  they  hold  up  their  heads  and  take  a  long  look  ahead 
to  see  its  effect  on  the  future,  if  left  go  on.  Perhaps,  how- 
ever, each  thought:  "Oh!  I  will  be  dead  by  that  time,"  and 
if  he  realized  the  wrong,  consoled  his  conscience  with  the  re- 
flection that  evereybody  was  doing  the  same  thing,  besides  it 
M^as  not  made  a  criminal  offense  to  get  the  best  of  the  hired 
man,  and  if  it  was  a  moral  offense,  each  excused  the  other 
because  all  were  perfectly  willing  to  be  guilty  of  it  when  con- 
ditions favored. 

"Sufficient  unto  the  day  is  the  evil  thereof"  seemed  to 
fit  their  case,  so,  when  they  got  a  chance  to  make  a  dollar  by) 
getting  work  done  cheaper  than  they  could  if  they  had  been 
just  to  the  man  who  did  it,  no  one  was  disposed  tO'  let  the  op-« 
portunity  pass;  he  seized  it.       The  accumulated   effects  of 


12  THE   WAY  OUT. 

this  perpetual  unjust  practice,  when  looked  at  a  hundred 
years  ahead  could  not  be  anticipated  probably  at  that  time. 
They  likely  never  dreamed  the  little  that  men  could  save  or 
make  off  of  hired  help,  could  grow  into  such  great  fortunes^ 
as  Ave  see  to-day.  They  little  dreamed  that  the  little  insignifi- 
cant sums  in  wages  they  wronged  the  hired  man  out  of  could 
be  the  means  of  so  much  mischief,  or  that  they  had  launched 
a  system  that  contained  the  germ  and  secret  of  the  enormous 
Trusts  and  Monopolies  of  the  present.  But  it  was  true, 
nevertjieless. 

Every  dollar  that  is  invested  in  all  the  railroads,  street- 
car lines,  telegraph  and  telephone  lines,  ships  and  steamers, 
canals,  big  mills,  factories,  mines,  buildings  and  machinery 
en  earth,  came  from  Profits  on  the  Hired  Man's  labor;  thati 
is,  they  repreesnt  the  total  wages  he  earned  and  should  hav^ 
received,  but  did  not  get. 


THE   WAY  OUT.  13 


CUSTOM   CANNOT  MAKE   WRONG  RIGHT.     A  MIND 

THAT  HAS  STOPPED  GROWING  NEVER 

INVESTIGATES. 

Men  have  so  long  been  accustomed  to  selling  their  labor 
for  any  price  they  pleased,  and  other  men  have  so  long  been 
accustomed  to  buying  it  without  interference,  that  all  have 
come  to  blindly  accept  those  privileges  as  fundamental  rights, 
not  to  be  questioned. 

It  is  strange  how  readily  we  accept  some  things  as  true 
and  right,  without  proving  them,  just  because  others  have  so 
regarded  them;  but  it  is  stranger  still  that,  when  some  one 
points  out  why  they  are  false  and  wrong,  we  turn  away  and: 
refuse  to  listen  or  to  investigate. 

Such  actions  cannot  be  the  result  of  conservative  thought, 
for  a  conservative  person  is  one  who  investigates  the  new  as 
well  as  the  old  but  honestly  doubts,  and  therefore  refuses  to 
change.  They  cannot  be  the  result  of  a  lack  of  desire  on 
the  part  of  the  people  to  know  a  truth  that  would  better 
their  condition,  for  surely  all  would  be  glad  to  see  that  done 
if  they  only  knew  a  way.  I  can  account  for  them  on  no 
ground  except  selfishness  and  stupidity,  and  no  one  will  plead 
guilty  to  either  of  these.  Wherever  it  is,  I  fancy  the  con- 
servative, the  selfish,  the  stupid  and  all  others  will  agree  that, 
every  generation  has  stumbled  over  many  simple  truths  and 
never  noticed  them,  and  because  it  did  not,  kept  right  on  in 
the  old  way,  making  the  conditions  of  life  harder  and 
harder,  when  each  might  have  made  them  easier  and  easier 
and  left  a  legacy  of  better  conditions  to  the  next  one  instead 
of  some  they  did. 

That  because  of  their  failure  to  recognize  or  refusal  to 
be  governed  by  truths  that  underlaid  and  were  absolutely  es- 
sential to  the  welfare  of  society,  this  generation  is  several 
centuries  behind  in  social  progress,  what  it  should  be. 

Whether  people  see  it  or  not,  the  questions  asked  at  the 
beginning  of  this  book,  involve  principles  of  human  conduct 
which  underlie  and  are  essential  to  the  Avelfare  of  society; 
and  if  this  generation  shall  be  too  blind,  stupid  or  selfish  to- 
discover  them  and  act  on  them,  it  will  not  only  make  the 
conditions  of  life  harder  for  itself,  but  it  will,  in  its  turn, 
leave  to  the  next,  conditions  more  oppressive  than  any  here- 
tofore left  to  any  generation. 

I  do  not  expect  those  who  already  know  it  all,  to  read 
what  I  write.  The  minds  of  those  who  "know,"  have  got 
their  growth,  and  a  mind  that  has  stopped  growing  has  quit 
investigating. 

Nor  do  I  expect  those  who  are  mean  enough  to  want  to 
get  ahead  by  underpaying  or  overworking  their  hired  men  to 


14  THE   WAY  OUT. 

read  me  or  agree  with  me.  They  are  satisfied  with  things  as 
they  are.  They  do  not  want  the  pesent  system  disturbed  or 
criticised.  It  upholds  them  in  robbing  the  hired  man  out  of 
part  of  the  money  he  honestly  earns  and  should  receive,  as 
just  wages  for  his  labor. 

There  are  two  closses  of  people,  who  will  read  this  and 
be  interested  in  it. 

First.     Those  who  work  for  wages ;  and 

Second.  Those  who  do  not,  but  are  great  enough  to  feel 
interested  in  the  welfare  of  those  who  do,  and  want  to  see 
them  fairly  paid. 

The  first  class  will  be  interested,  because  it  concerns  their 
bread  and  butter,  their  health,  happiness  and  life. 

The  second  class,  because  of  their  love  of  humanity  and 
fair  play  and  because  they  see  in  the  constant  wronging  of 
tbose  w'ho  toil,  the  gradual  destruction  of  those  finer  qualities 
of  head  and  heart  necessary  to  the  development  of  a  nobler 
race  of  men  and  women,  instead  of  the  improvement  of  them! 
to  guid  the  Avorld  along  more  safely  and  swiftly  in  the  direc- 
tion of  greater  general  security  and  happiness. 

The  good,  which  these  two  classes  wish  to  see  accomplish- 
ed, is  a  Divine  justification  for  their  interest. 

The  wa^ongs.  which  those  who  will  take  no  interest  wish 
to  perpetuate,  are  a  devilish  justification  for  their  lack  of  in- 
terest. 

The  latter  will  contend,  of  course,  that  they  do  not  seek 
to  perpetuate  any  ^ATongs,  and  wall  rely  upon  the  great 
length  of  time  it  has  been  the  custom  to:  hire  men  in  the  open 
market  at  the  lowest  price,  regardless  of  fairness,  to  support 
their  selfish  contentions ;  but  they  forget  that  custom  can 
never  make  a  wrong  right,  no  matter  how  ancient  it  is. 


THP]    WAY  OUT.  15 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  CUSTOM. 

Away  back,  when,  population  was  scarce  and  a  large  part 
of  the  world  remained  to  be  occupied  and  cultivated;  before 
large  portions  of  it  were  even  discovered;  when  unknown 
islands  and  continents  were  still  awaiting  the  coming  of  men 
and  women  to  people  them,  make  homes,  build  cities  and  found 
nations;  before  there  were,  anywhere,  great  farms,  factories, 
mills,  mines,  stores  or  ships,  and  all  industries  were  carried 
on  on  a  small  scale;  before  the  days  of  machiner5^  when  all 
things  were  made  by  hand;  when  the  ways  of  life  were  sim-i 
pie  and  the  things  required  to  make  the  simple  people  con- 
tented and  happy  were  limited ;  in  those  days  people  exchang- 
ed work  or  worked  for  each  other  as  a  matter  of  accommoda- 
tion ;  or  because  they  did  not  care  to  work  for  themselves,  or} 
to  get  a  little  start  before  going  into  business  for  them-^ 
selves. 

If  wages  were  asked  or  paid,  they  were  necessarily  what 
would  be  equal,  at  least,  to  the  value  of  the  services  of  thei 
person,  if  w^orking  for  himself,  or  sufficient  to  attract  him  to 
work  'for  others  instead  of  for  himself. 

The  reasons  for  that  state  in  regard  to  wages  lay  in  the 
fact  that  a  great,  free  unclaimed  world  was  lying  before  men, 
presenting  vast  and  various  opportunities  for  individual  ad- 
venture, effort  and  enterprise  that  always  promised  to  reward 
them  with  abundant  supplies  for  individual  w^ants. 

There  was  no  such  thing  as  competing  with  each  other 
to  get  the  same  job  of  work,  except,  perhaps,  among  those 
who  lacked  the  push  to  strike  out  for  themselves;  and  as  that 
was  before  the  birth  of  greed  and  great  fortunes,  no  one 
needed  very  much  money  to  begin  business  for  himlself. 
Every  man's  hands,  with  his  small  kit  of  tools,  was  a  factory. 

Every  cross-road,  with  its  poorly-equipped  shops  where 
things  were  made  or  repaired,  was  a  commercial  center. 

True,  there  was  competition,  but  it  was  not  the  competi- 
tion of  capital.  The  small  capital  required  to  do  business 
was  within  the  reach  of  all,  and  no  man  was  forced  out  of 
business  by  his  neighbor  by  the  power  of  money. 

Competitors  relied  for  success  upon  their  superior  skill 
as  workmen,  their  fair  dealing,  prompt  attention  to  business, 
obliging  manners  and  general  honesty. 

So  I  say,  at  one  time,  when  no  country  was  so  thickly 
populated  and  land  was  abundant ;  when  the  methods  of  doing 
things  were  crude  and  work  plentiful,  it  was  impossible  for 
laboring  men  to  crowd  each  other;  and,  not  being  crowded, 
there  was  nothing  to  force  them  to  think  of  the  fundamental 
principle  affecting  their  welfare  and  the  welfare  of  society'', 
fo*  which  I  am  now  contending,  namely,  "No  man  has  a  right 


16  THE  WAY  OUT. 

to  sell  his  labor  for  any  price  he  pleases,"  and  not  being 
forced  to  think  of  it,  no  body  thought  of  it. 

The  conditions  necessary  to  make  them  think  had  not  yet 
developed. 

The  time  had  to  come  when  machinery  was  taking  the 
place  of  hands  and  fingers,  as  it  does  to-day ;  when  the  vacant 
'lands  were  all  occupied,  as  they  are  to-day;  when  the  ma- 
chinery, tools,  factories,  mills,  mines  and  lands  were  all  own- 
ed by  a  FEW,  as  they  are  to-day ;  when  there  were  so  many^ 
to  do  the  work  that  they  must  compete  with  each  other  for 
places  and  be  forced  by  necessity  to  agree  to  work  for  less 
than  enough  to  properly  live  in  order  to  get  them,  as  they 
are  doing  to-day ;  when  many  could  get  no  work  at  any  price 
and  were  starving  as  they  are  to-day;  when  men  were  being 
driven  from  home  and  State  by  militia  and  corporation  hire- 
lings as  they  are  to-day  in  Colorado.  Those  were  the  condi- 
tions that  were  necessary  to  make  men  stop  and  think,  and 
now  that  they  are  here,  they  are  thinking. 

A  necessity  has  arisen;  it  is  a  necessity  for  something  to 
eat  in  many  cases  and  in  others  something  better  to  eat;  for 
clothes,  shelter  and  other  things  that  make  life  fairly  comfort- 
able and  enjoyable;  and  to  procure  these,  work  is  necessary 
and  at  wages  that  will  buy  them,  and  neither  is  obtainable. 
This  is  not  exaggerated,  although  I  wish  it  was;  it  is  true, 
awfully  true.  Interview  laboring  men  in  every  class,  and 
they  will  nearly  all  tell  of  a  fruitless  hunt  for  work  and  of 
wages  insufficient  to  support  a  family. 

These  are  the  forces  at  work  that  set  men  to  thinking, 
and  that  will  always  do  it  when  everything  else  has  failed. 
Deprive  them  of  the  necessaries  of  life,  or  make  them  work 
hard  and  then  not  be  able  to  get  half  enough,  although  they 
see  plenty  all  about  them,  and  they  are  liable  to  get  to  think- 
ing something  is  wrong  and  begin  to  wonder  what  it  is  and 
try  to  locate  it.  That  is  what  they  are  doing  now.  They 
know  they  are  in  trouble  about  work  and  wages,  and  that 
trouble  is  always  the  result  of  a  wrong  somewhere,  and  un- 
less they  take  pains  to  hunt  it  up  they  will  never  know  the 
remedy. 

For  years  political  parties  have  told  them  to  look,  first 
this  way  and  then  that :  to  do  this,  then  that,  and  they  would 
surely  see  the  "WTongs  that  beset  them  and  the  way  to  right 
them.  But  it  was  not  true:  the  wrongs  grew  worse  and 
worse,  and  the  ways  of  righting  them  less  and  less  apparent. 
It  was  all  a  lie.  Work  has  steadily  become  scarcer  relative? 
to  the  number  of  men  who  want  to  do  it,  and  wages  are  no- 
better. 

Laboring  men  continue  to  fight  each  other  over  getting 
the  vacant  places,  and  with  their  employes  over  securing  more 
favorable  terms. 

Many  of  them,  in  their  bewilderment,  have  even  located 


THE   WAY  OUT.  17 

their  grievances  at  the  door  of  genius  and  wished  to  destroy 
the  machinery  that  displaced  them. 

But  for  every  wrong,  there  is  an  adequate  cause,  and 
must  be  an  adequate  remedy;  some  time  they  will  discoveil 
both,  and  then,  let  those  responsible  for  their  miseries  stand 
from  under. 

The  fact  that  troubles  have  existed  and  do  exist  between 
the  hirer  and  the  hired  is  all  the  proof  needed  that  wrongs 
have  existed  and  do  exist. 

Were  there  no  wTongs,  there  would  be  no  troubles. 

Employers  and  employees  would  be  getting  on  smoothly 
together;  there  would  be  no  strikes,  lock-outs  or  boycotts; 
everything  would  be  harmonious  and  peaceful  and  everybody 
prosperous,  satisfied  and  happy. 

The  thing  is,  therefore,  to  discover  the  cause  of  the  wrong 
and  to  right  it.  The  wrong  certainly  exists  and  it  is  certain 
that  it  had  a  beginning. 

If  we  take  the  United  States  from  the  time  of  the  Col- 
onies, and  consider  what  has  been  the  rule  as  to  wages  from 
that  time  to  the  present,  we  shall  discover  the  mistake  made 
in  this  country  that  has  necessarily  led  to  all  the  troubles  that 
have  occurred  over  wages,  and  hours  consituting  a  day's 
work;  and  if  we  do,  the  same  discovery  will  apply  to  the 
same  troubles  all  over  the  world. 

We  shall  at  the  same  time  discover  the  course,  which,  if 
it  had  been  pursued,  would  have  minimized  those  troubles 
and  settled  such  as  arose,  in  a  legal  and  satisfactory  way. 

The  concentration  of  capital  for  the  economical  conduct 
of  the  business  of  the  country,  would  not,  as  it  has  done,  have' 
necessitated  the  organization  of  hired  men  to  protect  them- 
selves against  the  greed  of  the  capitalist.  The  hired  man 
would  have  always  had  a  constant  friend  in  the  law  and 
courts,  which  would  have  guarded  his  rights  and  done  justice, 
and  the  whole  country  would  have  felt  the  benefit  of  the 
right  way.  I    ' 


18  THE    WAY  OUT. 


AVASTED  EFFORT  AND  TH'E  COMPETITIVE  SYSTEM. 

xVn  assault  upon  the  competitive  system  is  not  the  object 
of  this  book,  so  the  defendei^s  of  the  system  need  not  quit 
reading:  on  that  account;  nor  is  the  reform  I  advocate  bas:ed 
upon  the  destruction  of  that  system;  on  the  contrary,  it  nat- 
urally goes  with  it,  and  the  continuation  of  the  system  is  what 
furnishes  the  reason  for  this  reform  to  accompany  it,  wliile 
it  lasts,  for  the  protection  of  hired  men. 

However,  I  find  it  necessaiy  to  have  somethins:  to  say  of 
it,  in  order  to  make  clear  what  I  wish  to  say  of  those  who; 
cry  peace!  peace!  to  men  str^^o:glino:  for  a  living  and  gain, 
when  there  is  and  can  be  no  such  thing  as  peace  in  the  in- 
dustrial world  under  the  system. 

Personally.  I  abominate  competition  as  a  curse  to  the 
welfare  of  the  world,  so  da  not  look  for  me  to  speak  very 
kindly  of  it;  but  remember,  it  is  the  system  itself  I  condemn,, 
not  you  who  think  it  a  good  thing.  Even  if  you  are  mis- 
taken, you  are  not  to  be  censured;  you  are  to  be  given  credit 
for  honest  convictions,  whatever  they  may  be,  and  in  time 
there  if^  hope  that  we  will  both  get  right  and  agree. 

Religionists,  sentimentalists  and  other  Avell-meaniag  peo- 
ple may  preach,  exhort  and  lecture  until  doomsday,  to  get 
men  who  are  in  business  for  profits,  to  observe  the  golden 
rule,  "do  unto  others  as  you  would  have  others  do  unto  you." 
But  their  efforts  are  wasted — absolutely  wasted;  because  no 
matter  how  much  people  would  gladly  follow  the  advice,  the 
competitive  system  compels  them,  for  self-proteelion,  to  dis- 
regard it,  and  they  will  disregard  it.  Nobody  will  knowing- 
ly do  that  which  will  hasten  his  own  destruction. 

They  should  realize  that  we  have  been,  and  still  are,  liv- 
ing and  working  under  the  destructive  and  murderous  com- 
petitive system;  that  our  laws  always  have  and  still  do  rec- 
ognize that  system  as  right  and  proper,  and  most  of  our  peo-, 
pie  frown  upon  every  effort  to  abolish  it. 

They  are  so  set  and  prejudiced  in  its  favor  that  they  will 
not  have  it,  if  there  is  any  other  or  better  way,  although  they 
know  it  is  a  "dog-eat-dog"  system,  and  all  have  suffered  by  it. 

They  know  its  motto  is  for  everybody  to  cinch  everybody 
else,  and  its  command  is  "gobble  all  you  can;  all  in  sight  or 
out  of  sight;  spare  no  one;  get  ahead:  look  out  for  yourself, 
first,  last  and  all  the  time;  success  is  the  only  thing  that 
counts,  no  matter  how  you  get  it. ' ' 

Success  is  respected,  honored  and  bowed  to  and  no  ques- 
tions asked ;  even  the  preachers  get  on  their  knees  to  it. 

Everybody  knows  that  competition  encourages  and  fosters 
every  manner  of  trick,  deception  and  dishonest  practice,  yet 
everybody  upholds  it  and  says  it  is  right. 


THE   AVAY  OUT.  19 

AND  THE  LAW!  Although  its  courts  are  constantly  oc- 
cupied in  unravellini?  the  tangles  and  solving  the  troubles 
competition  gets  people  into,  and  in  determining  the  guiit  or 
innocence  of  some  over-zealous  person  Mho  has  too  openly 
robbed  somebody,  solemnly  approves  of  it  as  a  fundamental 
principle  of  human  conduct,  necessary  to  the  wellfare  of  man- 
kind. 

It  says  it  is  right,  then  sits  in  judgment  on  some  poor 
devil  it  has  driven  insane. 

It  says  it  is  right,  then  builds  soup  houses  to  feed  those 
it  has  robbed. 

It  says  it  is  right,  then  buys  poor-farms  to  care  for  its 
victims  until  they  die. 

It  says  it  is  right,  then  erects  a  gallows  to  hang  some  one 
it  has  driven  first  to  steal,  then  to  murder. 

It  builds  school  houses  to  teach  young  children  to  be  good 
and  make  good  citizens,  and  when  grown,  turns  them  loose 
and  tells  them  to  get  a  living  by  rustling  and  getting  the  best 
of  each  other  whenever  they  can. 

It  tells  every  man  to  make  use  of  competition  to  do  all  the 
deviltry  he  can  so  long  as  he  keeps  out  of  jail  "by  the  skin 
of  his  teeth"  or  otherwise. 

In  short,  the  law  by  unholding  competition  keeps  lighting 
a  fire  with  one  hand  and  endeavoring  to  extinguish  it  with 
the  other  before  it  has  done  damage. 

The  truth  is  that,  if  HELL  is  a  condition  where  people 
get  no  peace,  then  COIMPETITION  is  hell,  and  it  is  respon- 
sible for  the  conditions  which  Rev.  C.  N.  Howard,  of  Roches- 
ter, N.  Y.,  says  exist  as  follows : 

"Wliile  the  population  of  the  country  has  increased  three 
times,  the  crime  in  the  country  has  increased  twelve  times. 
The  United  States  is  paying  more  for  the  support  of  criminal 
institutions  than  for  both  religion  and  education.  In  ad- 
dition there  is  the  expense  of  protecting  people  from  the  at- 
tacks of  criminals  without  the  jails." 

Now,  so  long  as  the  law,  by  unholding  competition,  re- 
wards people  who  take  advantage  of  others,  that  is,  permits 
them  to  keep  all  they  can  get  by  fighting  each  other  in  every 
industrial  walk  of  life;  is  it  of  any  use  to  preach  to  them 
or  lecture  them  and  tell  them  they  should  not  do  so? 

It  is  manifestly  nonsense,  and  every  sensible  person  ought 
to  know  it. 

President  Roosevelt  stood  with  both  feet  on  the  very  bottom 
foundation  principles  every  nation  must  rest  upon  in  order 
to  be  happy,  prosperous  and  strong,  when  he  said,  in  his 
speech  at  the  State  Fair  in  Syracuse,  N.  Y.,  September  7th, 
1903 : 

"It  is  all  essential  to  the  continuance  of  our  healthy  na- 
tional life  that  we  should  recognize  this  community  of  in- 
terests among  our  people.  The  wellfare  of  each  of  us  is  de- 
pendent fundamentally  upon  the  wellfare  of  all  of  us.     *     * 


20  THE    WAY  OUT. 

We  must  act  upon  the  motto  of  all  for  each  and  each  for  all. ' ' 

In  this  speech  he  had  reference  to  labor  and  capital.  The 
trouble  with  the  president's  advice  "was  that  he  did  not  saji 
how  such  a  condition  could  be  brought  about.  Does  he  think 
people  will  "act  upon  the  motto  of  all  for  each  and  each  for 
all"  or  that  "community  of  interest"  is  possible  so  long  as 
the  law  recognizes  competition  as  the  right  thing? 

He  certainly  knows  they  will  not  and  that  it  is  not;  and 
why  so  smart  a  man,  who  himself  has,  time  and  again,  in  his 
speeches  (and  he  does  in  this  same  speech)  endorse  the  com- 
petitive system,  should  advocate  two  courses  of  conduct  for 
the  people  to  live  by  that  are  so  opposite  and  inconsistent 
with  each  other,  is  not  easy  to  account  for. 

President  Roosevelt  is  generally  recognized  by  all  classes 
as  an  able  and  incorruptible  man.  People  generally  would 
resent  the  imputation  that  he  Avould  resort  to  tricks  of  speech 
to  fool  them  even  if  his  life  was  at  stake. 

Then  why  is  it  that  he  stands  by  competition  as  right,  and 
at  the  same  time  tells  the  people  "we  should  recognize  this 
community  of  interest  among  the  people."  "We  must  act 
upon  the  motto  of  all  for  each  and  each  for  all?" 

If  he  fully  understands  the  significance  of  the  ''all  for 
each  and  each  for  all"  motto  or  the  "community  of  interest" 
doctrine  (both  of  which  mean  the  same  thing)  he  knows  the 
present  code  of  laws  is  not  adapted  to  practicing  them:  then 
why,  knowing  it  is  impossible  for  people  to  act  on  his  ad- 
vice, does  he  not  say  to  them,  "go  and  make  laws  that  make 
these  things  possible.  Change  your  constitution,  if  necessary, 
and  leet  us  'each  have  that  wellfare  that  depends  funda- 
mentally upon  the  wellfare  of  all.'  " 

What  are  constitutions  and  laws  for  if  not  to  guard  th^ 
wellfare  of  the  people? 

Do  we  look,  or  have  we  ever  looked  to  anything  but  law 
to  consei've  our  rights  and  stamp  out  wrong  1 

Do  we  expect  people  to  do  right  just  because  the  presi- 
dent, or  someone  else  tells  them  they  should?  No!  We  know 
they  will  not.  We  know  if  they  are  told  they  should  do  this 
or  should  not  do  that,  they  will  ask:  "What  is  the  law?" 
And  if  there  is  no  law,  they  consider  it  is  proper  for  them 
to  do  it  or  not  as  they  see  fit,  and  their  actions  are  always  gov- 
erned by  their  personal  interests  as  they  see  them. 

If  men  will  do  right  Avithout  law,  then  why  have  we  laws? 
We  know  laws  are  necessary ;  that  they  will  not  do  right  with- 
out them,  so  we  make  laws  to  compel  them  to.  Hence  if  any- 
thing is  wrong  that  the  law  don't  reach,  let  us  make  a  law 
that  will  reach  it  and  stop  this  foolishness  of  asking  people 
to  "please  be  good." 

It  is  all  right  to  cultivate  in  men  a  desire  to  do  right  purely 
for  the  love  of  right,  but  at  the  present  stage  of  human 
development  and  methods  of  getting  a  living,  if  we  want  to 
feel  certain  they  will  do  right,  we  must  make  a  law  relative 
to  the  matter  and  attach  a  penalty  that  they  fear.     All  men 


THE   WAY  OUT.  21 

do  not  fear  sermons  or  hell,  but  all  have  great  respect  for 
sheriffs  and  prisons. 

So  I  say,  those  who  are  undertaking  or  hoping  to  bring 
about  any  substantial  harmony  or  lasting  peace  between  labor 
and  capital,  or  between  any  set  of  men  whose  interests  clash, 
by  appealing  to  them  to  be  humane,  to  be  just,  to  be  conscien- 
scious,  to  be  good,  honorable  and  deal  fairly,  are  simply  under- 
taking and  hoping  for  the  impossible  so  long  as  these  same 
men  are  compelled  to  fight  each  other  for  what  they  get  in 
the  field  of  competition. 

Nor  is  this  true  because  all  men  lack  honor,  conscience  and 
kind  hearts ;  it  is  true  because  it  is  the  very  nature  of  com- 
petition that  every  man  must  fight,  and  he  can  not  make  a 
successful  fight  unless  he  throws  conscience  and  fair  dealing 
to  the  dogs  and  goes  in  to  win  at  any  cost,  even  at  the  cost  of 
his  honor.  It  is  either  that  or  be  crushed,  and  it  is  doubt- 
ful if  even  all  those  who  advocate  the  conscience  method  of 
solving  business  differences  could  be  relied  on  ( if  money  was 
at  stake)  to  always  follow  the  advice  they  are  so  willing  to 
give  others. 

Business  men  look  upon  the  doctrine  about  being  "your 
brother's  keeper"  as  only  meant  for  fools;  and  no  matter 
what  they  profess  on  Sunday,  they  devote  the  six  days  fol- 
lowing to  devising  ways  and  means  to  circumvent  their  neigh- 
bor. 

If  men  M^ere  free  to  choose,  then  appeals  to  the  heart  and 
conscience  might  have  some  effect  to  shape  their  daily  con- 
duct; but  no  man  is  free  whose  living  depends  on  competi- 
tion, and  every  man's  living  depends  on  it.  Like  Esau,  he 
knows  every  man's  hand  is  against  him,  that  uncompromising 
competitive  business  methods  encompass  him,  and  he  is  power- 
less to  defy  them  without  ruin  to  himself;  so,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  an  occasional  feeble  protest,  all  accept  it  as  an 
existing  condition  from  which  there  is  no  escape,  and  fight 
each  other  like  dogs  over  a  bone.  "What  for?  To  get,  gei, 
get  more  than  they  have  any  use  for. 

Is  not  such  a  condition  shameful,  disgraceful  to  a  people 
layig  claim  to  such  high  civilization?  The  Presiident  evi- 
dently sees  something  amiss  in  the  competitive  system  or  why 
should  he  remind  those  who  are  competing  to  not  lose  sight  of 
the  motto,  but  "must  act  upon"  it,  of  "all  for  each  and  each 
for  all."  (1)  But  whether  he  sees  it  or  not,  it  is  the  chief 
cause  of  all  the  misery  in  the  world  to-day,  and  its  inevitable 
consequences  are  to  increase  it  so  long  as  it  is  permitted  to 
remain  a  lawful  condition  of  society. 

Law  cannot  countenance  competition  and  at  the  same  time 
successfully  counteract  its  natural  effects. 

If  it  recognizes  it,  it  must  expect  the  consequences.  If 
it  abolishes  it  the  misery  it  causes  will  cease.  If  it  is  a  good 
thing  let  us  quit  criticising  those  who  practice  it  with  success. 
If  it  is  a  bad  thing,  let  us  knock  it  out.  It  cannot  be  knocked 
out  wth  sermons,  it  must  be  done  with  Force — LAW. 


THE  WAY  OUT. 


HOW  THE  DOCTRINE  THAT  IT  IS  A  MAN'S  RIGHT 
TO  SELL  HIS  LABOR  FOR  ANY  PRICE 
HE  PLEASES,  GOT  INTO  THE 
UNITED  STATES. 

A  NATURAL  ERROR. 

Anyone  can  easily  imagine  that,  in  the  United  States,  say 
a  hundred  years  ago  when  substantially  the  whole  population 
was  confined  to  a  narrow  strip  along  the  Atlantic  Coast  and 
the  almost  boundless  "West  offered  every  man  a  home  and  an 
easy  living,  it  was  the  most  natural  thing  in  the  world  for 
people  to  fall  into  the  error  that  it  was  right  for  eveiy  man 
to  sell  his  labor  for  any  price  that  pleased  him,  because  all 
knew  that,  if  any  man  was  dissatisfied  Mith  his  job,  wages  or 
employer,  he  did  not  have  to  stay;  he  could  go  out  West  and! 
get  a  home  of  his  own.     The  whole  West  was  open  to  him. 

As  to  one  man  interfering  with  another  by  cutting  wages, 
it  did  not  amount  to  anything  for  the  reason  that  there  was 
so  much  public  land  to  go  and  live  upon,  nobody  cared  or 
questioned  another's  right  to  cut  wages,  or  his  right  to  work 
for  less  than  reasonable  wages,  or  the  right  of  his  employer 
to  hire  him  for  less  than  reasonable  wages.  Nobody  was  af- 
fected. 

The  unoccupied  public  lands  and  the  new  industries  they 
fostered  were  always  a  vent  and  refuge  for  labor  and  the  la- 
bor market  was  never  overcrowded;  employers  were  always 
obliged  to  pay  reasonable  wages  to  attract  and  keep  the  men 
they  needed. 

These  were  the  conditions  and  circumstances  that  moulded 
the  minds  of  the  people  and  laid  the  foundation  in  the  United 
States  for  the  inculcation,  retention  and  adoption  of  the  un- 
just and  fallacious  doctrine,  that,  "ii  is  every  man's  riglit  to 
sell  his  labor  in  the  open  marliet  for  any  price  he  pleases, 
and  it  is  nohofly's  business  but  his  own." 

To  the  poeple  of  a  hundred  years  ago  the  West  seemed  to 
be  boundless  and  the  quantity  of  public  land  unlimited;  they 
could  not  imagine  at  the  time  when  it  would  be  all  occupied 
and  no  longer  a  refuge  for  men  who  wished  to  escape  from 
crowded  centers;  certainly  they  did  not  imagine  it  would  be 
so  soon  and  most  of  them  thought  never.  Therefore,  there  was 
no  cause  for  doubting  or  even  suspecting  the  wisdom  of  the 
doctrine ;  and  if,  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  West  had  been  bound- 
less and  the  public  lands  unlimited,  if  rich  valleys,  great 
mountains,  forests,  mines,  rivers  and  rolling  plains  had  con- 
itnued  on  eternally,  or  if,  as  population  increased  and  men 
required  more  land  to  enable  them  to  escape  oppressive  condi- 


THE   WAY  OUT.  23 

tions,  God  should  have  created  it  for  them,  then  the  doctrine 
that  a  man  may  sell  his  labor  for  any  price  he  pleases  could 
never  had  done  any  harm.  The  objection  I  make  to  it  would 
not  apply. 

But  that  was  not  the  case.  The  West  did  have  bounds,  the 
public  lands  had  limits  and  God  had  quit  creating  more.  He 
made  what  there  is  and  turned  it  oved  to  his  children  to  man- 
age to  suit  themselves,  and  they  have  done  it.  Part  of  them 
have  appropriated  to  themselves  every  quarter-section  that  is 
worth  having  and  none  is  left  for  the  rest  or  for  those  yet  un- 
born. 

The  same  doctrine  and  rule  as  to  one's  right  to  sell  his 
labor  for  any  price  he  pleased  had  prevailed  in  the  old  coun- 
tries, and  those  who  emigrated  to  this  brought  it  with  them 
instead  of  leaving  it  behind  along  with  other  iniquitous  er- 
rors and  oppressions  from  which  they  had  fled  and  hoped  to 
escape  by  coming  here,  and  readily  joined  in  helping  to  make 
it  a  part  of  our  law. 

But  in  that  matter,  everybody,  native  and  naturalized,  had 
been  educated  to  think  the  wrong  way  was  right,  and  as  the 
conditions  of  the  new  world  were  favorable  to  that  view,  and 
no-  crisis  occurring  in  the  labor  markets  to  make  them  suspect 
it  was  wrong  or  caused  them  to  investigate  to  discover  its 
ultimate  disastrous  effects,  they  just  settled  down  to  practic- 
ing and  upholding  the  wrong  way. 

Every  circumstance  and  condition  seemed  to  tend  to  ob- 
scure and  keep  back  out  of  sight  and  thought  the  only  doc- 
trine and  rule  that  would  have  always  worked,  and  that  could 
have  always  been  relied  upon  to  settle  saisfactorily  to  all  con- 
cerned, the  wage  question,  in  one  generation  as  well  as  anoth- 
er or  in  one  country  as  well  as  another,  and  without  regard 
to  whether  there  Avas  any  more  public  lands  to  be  settled  or 
not. 

The  trouble  was  the  people  in  the  early  days  were  indus- 
trially so  independent,  they  imagined  all  people  would  always 
be  the  same,  or  else  they  did  not  concern  themselves  very 
much  about  what  degree  of  industrial  independence  others 
would  enjoy;  if  they  did,  and  could  have  looked  ahead  a 
hundred  years  and  seen  the  great  capitalist  combinations  of 
to-day  arrayed  against  organi;^ed  and  unorganized  hired  men, 
on  the  single  issue  of  reasonable  wages;  could  they  have  seen 
rich,  powerful  and  remorseless  corporations  making  use  of  the 
very  doctrine  and  rule  which  they  helped  to  perpetuate  as 
right,  to  despoil  and  oppress  the  class  whose  rights  and  in- 
terests the  rule  was  supposed  to  safeguard;  could  they  have 
seen  them  insisting  on  the  rule  because  it  enables  them  to 
make  a  profit  off  of  the  earnings  of  their  underpaid  hired 
men;  seen  them  insisting  that  men  wanting  work  shall  be  free 
to  compete  with  each  other  as  to  wages  to  get  it.  not  becaiLse 
they  care  for  the  wellfare  of  the  men,  but  besause 
they  want  to  go  among  them   and   take  advantage  of  such 


24  THE  WAY  OITT. 

competition  to  hire  those  who  will  work  the  most  hours  for 
the  least  pay,  regardless  of  whether  or  not  the  hours  or  wages 
are  reasnable,  or  will  support  them  comfortably  or  decently, 
or  whether  the  men  they  employ  voluntarily  accept  the  terms 
or  do  so  from  sheer  want  and  necessity ;  and  insisting  on  their 
legal  right  to  take  that  advantage ;  could  they  have  heard  the 
President  of  the  United  States  the  great  ( ?)  statesman  of  the 
country,  the  press  and  courts  all  upholding  and  encouraging 
the  conduct  and  contentions  of  these  capitalists  as  fundamen- 
tal, just  and  lawful ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  could  they  have 
seen  the  Labor  Unions  standing  solidly  together  and  heroical- 
ly endeavoring  to  unite  all  hired  men  to  resist  such  alleged 
rights  to  the  extent  of  demanding  for  themselves  reasonable 
hours  and  reasonable  wages,  and  refusing  to  work  unless  their 
demands  are  conceded:  could  they  have  looked  ahead  and 
seen  all  these  things,  they  certainly,  in  their  great  desire  to 
make  this  country  superior  in  every  respect  to  every  other  on 
earth,  and  what  they  professed  it  was  ('the  land  of  the  Free) 
would  have  rejected  the  old  rule  that  it  is  every  man's  right 
to  sell  his  labor  for  any  price  he  pleases,  and  tried  to  dis- 
cover one  that  would  not  have  placpd  him,  because  broke  and 
hungry,  completely  at  the  mercy  of  those  who  wouM  take  ad- 
vantage of  his  circumstances  and  refuse  to  hire  him  unless 
he  agreed  to  work  for  little  or  nothing. 

They  would  have  tried  to  devise  some  rule  that  would  pro- 
tect every  man  and  see  that  he  got  reasonable  wages  whether 
he  was  broke  and  hungry  or  not. 

They  might  have  compelled  by  law  every  employer  to  recog- 
nize the  fact  that,  the  labor  of  a  broken  man  or  hungry  man 
did  not  come  any  cheaper  than  that  of  a  man  who  was  not 
broke  or  hungry,  and  therefore  in  a  position  to  demand  rea- 
sonable wages  or  refuse  to  work. 

They  never  would  have  consented  to  the  present  pernicious 
rule  which  leaves  every  destitute  man  and  his  family  with  no 
law  to  protect  him  or  them  from  the  greed  of  human  sharks ; 
they  might  have  changed  it  so  it  would  have  said  to  every 
employer  of  labor  "you  shall  pay  every  nmn  you  hire  rea- 
sonuhle  wages,  no  tnater  xch ether  he  is  hard  up  or  not.  Every 
man  who  earns  his  living  by  wages  is  entitled  to  be  treated 
fairly  and  justly  and  you  shall  not  take  a  mean  advantage 
of  him  because  he  is  poor  and  dependent  or  ignorant  and  you 
are  rich,  shrewd  and  independent."  They  would  have  said, 
"the  State  has  some  interest  in  these  men's  wellfare  and  will 
have  something  to  say  about  such  transactions. ' ' 

They  might  have  established  the  general  rule  that:  Wages 
shall  in  every  case  be  reasonable,  any  contract  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding,  to  be  determined  at  the  instance  of  either 
party  by  a  jury  from  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case, 
including  the  cost  to  the  hired  of  living  properly  and  the 
ability  of  the  hirer  to  pay.  And  they  would  have  made  it  the 
law. 

Of  course  there  are  people  now,  who  will  be  quick  to  jump 


THE   WAY  OUT.  25 

up  and  exclaim,  "  Oh !  That  would  never  do ;  it  would  impair 
the  oblig:ations  of  contracts  and  be  unconstitutional ! " 

But  if  we  were  to  investigate  the  habits  of  thought  of  most 
of  these  people,  we  would  find  that  about  the  only  thinking 
they  have  ever  done,  was  confined  to  their  own  individual 
business  or  pleasure ;  that  so  far  as  sitting  down  to  investigate 
or  meditate  on  the  consequences  to  the  country  of  pursuing  a 
given  policy,  they  never  did  or  do,  and  the  nearest  they  ever 
came  to  such  a  thing  was,  when  they  took  an  hour  or_  two  off 
to  listen  to  a  speech  from  some  one  who  advocated  their  parti- 
cular prejudices,  or  to  vote  the  ticket  that  represented  their 
personal  interests.  As  to  being  grounded  in  governmental 
principles  or  policies,  they  are  as  innocent  of  knowledge  as 
children. 

AA^hen  they  say  such  a  rule  would  impair  the  obligations  of 
contracts,  we  might  reasonably  suspect  that  they  have  or 
hoped  to  have  some  interest  in  unjust  contracts  of  that  sort 
and  are  alarmed  more  for  fear  that  such  a  rule  might  interfere 
with  their  own  plans  to  exploit  hired  men,  than  from  any  deep 
seated  anxiety  they  have  for  the  sacredness  of  contracts  or 
the  general  wellf are.  However,  I  would  say  to  them  that,  ' '  the 
obligtaions  of  an  unjust  contract  ought  to  he  impaired,  other- 
wise we  must  say,  it  is  wrong  to  do  right." 

If  to  impair  the  obligations  of  an  unjust  contract  would  be 
to  do  something  unconstitutional,  then  I  would  say  further, 
"there  must  be  something  wrong  with  the  constitution." 

LET  US  SUPPOSE  A  CASE. 

If  one,  being  under  age,  wishes  to  be  relieved  from  the  ob- 
ligations of  his  contract,  the  courts  will  always  interfere  and 
declare  it  null  and  void. 

It  will  do  the  same  if  deception  is  used  to  get  one  to  enter 
into  an  unfair  contract,  if,  on  learning  of  the  deceit,  he  seeks 
to  be  relieved  from  it. 

It  will  do  the  same  if,  against  his  will  one  is  forced  to  agree 
to  do  or  not  to  do  a  particular  thing. 

The  principle  on  which  the  courts  interfere  and  give  relief 
in  the  first  case  is,  ivant  of  capacity  in  the  minor  to  contract. 

In  the  second  case  they  interfere  because,  fraud  was  practic- 
ed to  obtain  consent  to  the  conract,  and. 

In  the  third  case  because,  consent  was  wanting  it  was  ob- 
tained through  fear ;  that  is,  he  Avas  deprived  of  his  free  will, 
of  having  any  choice,  of  the  privilege  of  consenting  voluntar- 
ily or  refusing;  of  the  priviledge  of  exercising  his  discretion; 
his  mind  was  imprisoned  and  had  no  alternative  but  to  agree. 

Now,  here  are  three  different  kinds  of  casesi  in  which  the 
courts  will  always  interfere,  and  the  relief  they  give  is  the 
same  in  one  as  it  is  in  the  others. 

Let  us  now  inquire  and  see  if  there  is  any  difference  in 
principle  why  relief  should  be  given  in  those  cases  and  not 
in  the  following. 


26  THE  WAY  OliT. 


ANOTHER    CASE. 

Here  is  a  man  needing  food,  clothes  and  shelter  and  must 
work  and  earn  money  in  order  to  buy  them.  Here  is  another 
man  who  has  sufficient  food  and  clothing  and  a  comfortable 
house  to  live  in,  and  therefore,  although  he  hires  out  to  Keep 
himself  supplied,  does  not  have  to  sell  his  labor  at  present, 
but  is  ready  and  willing  to  do  so  whenever  he  is  paid  reason- 
able wages,  which  we  will  suppose  is  $2  per  day. 

Here  is  another  man  who  "wants  some  work  done,  and  is  able 
to  pay  reasonable  wages  to  a  man  who  will  do  it. 

He  knows  $2  per  day  is  reasonable,  and  that  he  can  afford 
to  pay  it,  but  he  also  knows  that  the  first  man  is  hard  up  and 
must  have  work,  and  that  the  second  man  is  not,  and  will  not 
work  unless  he  gets  $2  a  day.  So  in  the  hope  of  driving 
a  bargain  witb  the  first  man  he  goes  to  him  and  after  parlying 
awhile  offers  $1  or  no  work,  aud  the  man  seeing  it  is  $1  or 
nothing,  agrees  to  it  because  he  is  in  great  need  of  the  neces- 
saris  of  life. 

Of  course  if  $2  a  day  is  reasonable,  $1  is  barely  enough  to 
get  the  cheapest  necessaries. 

Now,  if,  when  the  man  comes  to  settle,  he  should  say  to 
his  employer,  "$1  is  not  enough,  I  have  been  barely  able  to  live 
and  have  nothing  saved,  you  should  pay  me  the  going  wages 
which  you  knew  when  you  hired  me  were  $2 ;  you  knew  when 
you  came  and  offered  me  $1  and  said  I  could  not  have  the  job 
unless  I  would  agree  to  work  for  that,  that  I  was  destitute  and 
hungry  and  had  no  choice  but  to  accept  your  offer."  His 
employer  would  laugh  in  his  face  and  say,  "no  sir,  and  you 
have  your  gall  with  you  to  ask  it.  You  made  a  fair,  square 
bargain  to  work  for  a  dollar  and  that  is  all  I  shall  pay  yon. 
You  did  have  a  choice  and  you  know  it.  You  choose  to  work- 
on  my  terms  to  going  hungry. ' ' 

Then  if  the  man  should  sue  to  recover  $2  a  day  and  allege 
and  be  able  to  prove  that,  "while  he  agreed  to  work  for  $1 
a  day  he  was  forced  to  do  so  by  reason  of  his  utter  poverty 
and  destitution,  and  for  no  other  reason,  although  $2  a  day 
was  the  going  and  reasonable  wages,  all  which  was  well  kno"RTi 
to  his  employer  when  he  offered  $1  and  refused  to  pay  more, 
or  to  hire  him  unless  he  would  agree  to  work  for  $1  and  did 
so  solely  for  the  purpose  of  taking  advantage  of  his  destitu- 
tion, aud  get  his  work  done  for  less  than  it  was  reasonably 
worth,  knowing  he  would  have  to  accept  and  agree  to  work 
for  $1  or  beg  or  go  hungrj'-;  that  the  services  rendered  were 
reasonably  worth  $2  a  day  and  the  employer  was  well  able  to 
pay  that  sum,  but  refused  to  pay  more  than  $1  which  was 
tendered  and  refused.  That  $1  was  barely  sufficient  to  pur- 
chase the  commonest  necessaries  of  life  from  day  to  day  while 
working  for  his  employer  and  he  was  unable  with  the  most 


THE   WAY  OUT.  27 

pinching  economy  to  purchase  needed  clothing  for  any  meia- 
iDcr  of  his  familj'  or  save  any  sum  whatever  after  paying  for 
his  common  necessities,"  and  should  ask  judgment  at  the 
rate  of  $2  a  day;  and  the  employer  should  answer  his  com- 
plaint and  admit  the  contract  at  $1  and  every  other  allegation 
and  ask  for  judgment  on  the  pleadings  for  his  costs,  what  do 
you  suppose  the  court  would  do  for  the  hired  man? 

Would  the  Judge  inquire  into  the  facts  alleged  that  forced 
him  to  agree  to  work  for  $1  instead  of  standing  out  for  $2  ? 

Would  he  take  into  consideration  the  fact  that  he  was 
destitute,  that  the  going  wages  were  $2,  that  his  services  were 
w^orth  $2,  and  the  employer  was  able  to  pay  $2,  and  should 
have  done  it  if  he  wished  to  be  fair  and  do  right  ? 

Would  he  be  influenced  against  the  employer  because  he  was 
stingy  and  selfish  and  took  a  mean  advantage  of  a  helpless 
man  to  make  a  dollar  off  his  labor  1  Would  he  tell  him  he  had 
no  right  to  do  it?  Would  he  punish  him  for  it  and  make  him 
pay  what  he  ought  to  have  agreed  to  pay?  Would  the  fact 
that  the  hired  man  had  to  spend,  each  day,  all  lie  agreed  to 
•work  for  ($1)  to  get  enough  to  eat  and  was  w^orse  off  after 
quitting  work  than  before  he  began  in  the  matter  of  clothing 
and  everything  with  the  exception  that  he  and  his  family 
were  kept  alive  during  the  time? 

No,  he  would  consider  none  of  those  matters.  Tie  would 
make  short  work  of  the  case  by  dismissing  it  and  tellijig  the 
hired  man  he  had  no  cause  of  action  and  give  judgment  in 
favor  of  the  employer  for  his  costs. 

If  he  should  feel  like  making  any  explanation  to  the  hired 
man  why  he  had  no  case,  he  would  say  something  like  this : 

DECISION. 

"In  this  case  the  court  can  take  cognizance  of  nothing  but 
the  contract  of  hiring,  the  terms  of  which  are  admitted  by 
both  parties;  and  as  it  is  also  admitted  that  the  employer* 
had  done  all  he  agreed  to  do,  you  had  no  ground  on  which  to 
base  this  action  or  to  recover.  The  obligations  of  every  con- 
tract voluntarily  entered  into  by  competent  parties,  the  law 
holds  sacred  and  cannot  be  impaired  unless  fraud  is  alleged 
and  proved. 

"The  fact  (which  is  admitted)  that  your  'utter  poverty  and 
destitution  forced'  you  to  make  a  contract  to  work  for  your 
employer  at  wages  that  were  inadequate  and  unjust  to  your- 
self, is  something  the  court  is  not  permitted  by  the  law  to  take 
any  notice  of.  If,  however,  it  had  been  alleged  and  proven 
that  your  employer  knowingly  did  something  to  place  you  in 
the  state  of  destitution  you  were  in,  and  did  it  with  the  object, 
purpose  and  expectation  of  taking  advantage  of  your  destitu- 
tion to  induce  you  to  contract  with  him  to  work  for  inadequate 
and  unjust  wages,  and  by  that  means  did  induce  you  to  con- 
tract with  him  to  work  for  inadequate  and  unjust  wages,  and 


28  THE  WAY  OUT. 

you  rendered  the  services  agreed  on ;  in  that  case,  it  is  possible 
the  court  could,  under  the  law,  set  the  contract  aside  and  give 
judgment  against  your  employer  for  the  reasonable  value  of 
your  services.  It  is  possible  that  such>a  state  of  tarts  would 
be  held  to  amount  to  a  fraud,  or  a  conspiracy  to  dejiraud. 

"In  this  case  there  are  no  such  allegations.  It  does  not 
appear  that  your  employer  was  in  any  way  responsible  for 
yonr  condition.  It  only  appears  that  he  knew  you  were  desti- 
tute and  hungry,  with  no  way  to  relieve  your  needs  except 
to  beg  or  agree  to  his  offer  of  employment;  and  believing 
that,  for  these  reasons,  you  would  agree  to  work  cheapsr  than 
others,  he  made  you  an  offer  of  work  and  certain  wages  and 
you  accepted.  Now,  what  your  employer  did  the  law  gives 
him  an  absolute  right  to  do.  It  gives  every  employer  the  same 
right ;  that  is,  the  right  to  hire  men  for  as  little  as  he  can.  He 
is  under  no  legal  obligation  to  agree  to  pay  adequate  or  rea- 
sonahle  wages.  If  the  man  hired  is  forced  by  want  (no  mat- 
ter hoAv  serious  it  is)  to  agree  to  work  for  wages  that  are  less 
than  adequate  or  reasonable,  it  is  his  individual  misfortune, 
one  which  the  law  takes  no  notice  of  even  when  invoked.  Its 
policy  is  to  leave  him,  and  does  leave  him  in  such  case,  a  vic- 
tim to  be  preyed  on  by  all  whose  consciences  are  so  hardened 
that  they  would,  if  they  could,  take  his  labor  and  pay  him  less 
than  its  value. 

"Right  or  wrong,  such  is  the  law  and  the  duty  of  the  court 
is  to  enforce  the  law  as  it  finds  it.  The  law  contemplates  that 
every  man  will  look  out  for  his  own  interests;  and  presumes 
until  the  contrary  appears,  that  he  is  competent  to  do  so. 
Those  it  regards  as  incompetent  and  in  whose  behalf  it  will 
interfere,  are  classified  as  minors  and  persons  of  unsound 
mind.  It  will  also  interfere,  when  moved  to  do  so,  in  cases 
of  force  or  fraud,  when  properly  alleged.  True,  you  have 
pleaded  here  a  kind  of  force,  but  it  is  not  the  kind  of  force 
the  law  will  relieve  you  from.  The  force  the  law  contem- 
plates is  the  kind  that  puts  one  in  fear,  as  threats  of  bodily 
harm.  If  one  was  forced  to  contract  in  that  manner  the  court 
could  give  relief.  In  your  case  the  force  that  induced  you  to 
agree  was  distress,  which  may  or  may  not  have  been  brousht 
on  by  your  own  conduct.  You  may  have  wasted  your  sub- 
stance in  riotous  living  or  you  may  have  come  to  want  from 
laziness;  you  may  have  speculated  and  failed  or  lost  all  by 
flood  or  fire  or  drought ;  but  Avhether  one  or  all  of  these  causes 
placed  you  in  a  position  where  you  were  forced  to  take  any 
employment  that  came  your  way,  the  law  does  not  concern 
itself.  It  still  treats  you  as  free  to  accept  or  refuse  any 
wages  offered  and  will  not  institute  or  countenance  any  in- 
quiry to  show  you  are  not  free  because  of  your  destitution  or 
that  you  acquiesced  from  necessity. 

"The  law  contemplates  that  you  are  ready  and  willing  to 
get  the  best  of  every  other  man  in  your  predicament  if  you 
can,  and  it  would  not  interfere  if  you  did  so.     On  the  other 


THE   WAY  OUT.  29 

hand,  it  leaves  you  without  pity  or  partiality  to  fight  it  out 
the  best  you  can  if  some  other  man  gets  the  best  of  you.  If 
you  can  press  the  nose  of  another  man  to  the  grind-stone  all 
his  life,  it  is  your  right  and  privilege  to  do  so,  the  law  will 
not  interfei-e;  nor  will  it  interfere  if  some  other  man  holds 
your  nose  there.    This,  in  that  respect,  is  a  free  country. 

"Suppose  ninety-nine  out  of  every  one  hundred,  or  nine 
hundred  and  ninety  out  of  every  one  thousand  people  in  the 
State  were  reduced  to  the  condition  of  want  and  distress  you 
were  in,  and  the  other  ten  in  every  thousand  were  able  to  em- 
ploy them  and  should  say  to  the  nine  hundred  and  ninety, 
'  we  will  employ  you  and  give  you  each  fifty  cents  a  day  if  you 
will  agree  to  work  for  that  and  board  yourself,'  and  the  nine 
hundred  and  ninety  had  no  other  offer  or  hope  but  to  agree 
to  it  to  prevent  starvation,  and  therefore  agreed.  There  is  no 
law  in  any  State  in  the  United  States  that  would  permit  any 
court  to  break  the  contract.  On  the  other  hand  the  law  of 
every  State  would  compel  every  court  to  enforce  it,  and  the 
nine  hundred  and  ninety  would  be  held  to  it  and  not  per- 
mitted to  recover  an  extra  cent,  no  matter  how  poor  they  were 
or  how  unjustly  lo-\v  the  wages  were,  or  how  rich  the  ten  men 
w^e're ;  and  if  the  nine  hundred  and  ninety  should  think  the 
law  and  the  decision  of  the  court  unreasonable  and  unjust, 
and  should  become  obstreperous  and  say,  Sve  will  not  stand  it, 
W' e  will  have  more  anyway, '  and  should  proceed  to  help  them- 
selves from  the  abundant  stores  of  the  ten  employers,  one  or 
all  of  the  ten  could  call  on  the  sheriff  and  he  and  all  his  dep- 
uties would,  by  command  of  the  same  law.  have  to  go  and  stop 
them;  and  if  they  were  not  strong  enough  to  do  it,  the  sherilA* 
would  be  obliged  to  swear  in  more  deputies,  and  if  they  could 
not  do  it,  the  ten,  or  any  one  of  the  ten,  employers  Aveuld 
have  the  right  to  -have  the  governor  call  cut  the  militia. 

"The  laws  of  this  country  are  founded  upon  thewholesome, 
necessary  and  patriotic  fundamental  principle  that  all  men 
must  be  and  are,  Free  to  contract. 

"It  makes  no  allowance  for  the  unfortunate  and  onerous 
conditions  on  which  you  seek  to  get  the  court 's  interference. 

"It  makes  no  allowance  for  the  conditions  that  lead  up  to 
those  onerous  conditions,  such  as,  lack  of  opportunity  to  earn. 

"It  is  however  a  familiar  principle  of  the  law  that,  where 
no  agreement  was  made  as  to  wages,  and  the  court  is  appealed 
to  to  decide,  it  will  hear  evidence  and  give  reasonable  wa^es. 

"The  difficulty  in  your  case,  and  in  the  cases  of  the  nine 
hundred  and  ninety  men  instanced  was,  that  you  all  had  an 
agreement. 

"There  are  other  conditions  the  law  makes  no  allowance 
for.  It  makes  no  allowance  for  a  condition  of  scarcity  of 
work,  which  places  laboring  men  at  the  mercy  of  e.iai  loyers 
in  the  matter  of  wages ;  nor  does  it  make  any  allowance  for  a 
ocndilion  of  scarcity  of  laborers  which  places  employers  at 
the  mercy  of  laboring  men  in  the  matter  of  wages  demanded. 


30  THE   WAY  OUT. 

"These  conditions  the  law  leaves  to  be  adjusted  by  what 
is  called  supply  and  demand ;  and  whether  the  supply  is  great- 
er or  less  than  the  demand,  it  is  all  the  same  so  far  as  law  is 
concerned,  which  always  looks  on  with  cold  indilierence. 

"It  may  see  men  willing  to  work,  and  starving  because 
there  is  not  enough  demand  for  their  labor.  It  may  see 
property  going  to  waste  or  ruin,  because  there  are  not  men 
enough  to  be  had  to  care  for  it  or  they  refuse  to  work ;  great 
suffering  in  one  case  and  great  loss  in  the  other ;  yet,  for  such 
conditions,  it  says  not  a  word.  They  are  left  to  chance;  and, 
while  it  is  not  the  business  of  the  Bench  to  cast  reflections  on 
the  wisdom  of  the  age  that  neglects  to  substitute  law  for 
chance,  where  it  is  possible,  I  cannot  refrain  from  remarking 
the  fact,  apparent  to  all,  that  the  country  suffers  from  partial 
distress  all  the  time,  and  general  distress  (called  panics) 
periodically,  which  appears  to  be  the  result  of  leaving  the  ad- 
justment of  these  important  matters  to  the  uncertain  state  of 
supply  and  demand.  It  is  possible  that  you  are  a  victim  of 
one  of  those  conditions  which  supply  and  demand  is  supposed 
to  regulate,  and  if  so,  your  troubles  are  outside  of  the  province 
of  the  law,  or  the  assistance  of  the  courts. 

"The  case  is  dismissed  and  defendant  will  take  judgment 
for  his  costs." 


THE   WAY  OUT.  81 


WHAT  DO  YOU  THINK  OF  IT? 

Now  that  the  court  has  decided  this  case  against  the  hired 
man,  and  given  as  its  reason  for  having  done  so  that,  under 
the  law  as  it  now  stands,  it  could  not  interfere  to  help  him,  I 
wish  to  ask  the  reader  a  question :  What  is  your  opinion  of 
the  law? 

This  man's  agreement  to  work  for  one  dollar  was,  apparent- 
ly a  voluntary  one,  but  truly,  was  it? 

Did  he  agree  because  the  offer  was  fair,  or  because  he  had 
to?  If  he  had  to,  how  can  the  law  or  any  court,  or  any  one 
say  it  was  voluntarj^?  If  it  was  not  voluntary,  it  must  have 
been  the  opposite,  which  is  involuntary,  that  is  Force.  If  he 
could  have  exercised  his  discretion  when  the  employer  offered 
him  $1,  when  he  should  have  offered  $2,  what  do  you  think 
ho  would  have  done?  What  would  you  have  done?  He  would 
have  refused  and  you  would  have  done  the  same.  What  made 
him!  agree  to  work  for  half  wages?    Hunger. 

Suppose  now  his  employer  had  gone  to  you  and  asked  you 
to  agree  to  work  for  him  for  half  wages  and  you  did  not 
need  money  bad  enough  to  make  it  necessary  for  you  to  do 
so  and  should  say  "No."  Suppose  he  should  then  stick  a 
loaded  revolver  in  your  face  and  say,  "Now,  damn  you,  if 
you  don't  agree  to  work  for  me  for  $1  a  day,  I  will  kill  you 
right  here!"  What  would  you  do?  If  you  thought  he  had 
the  drop  on  you,  and  meant  what  he  said,  you  would  do  just 
what  every  other  prudent  man  would  do  under  the  circum- 
stances.   You  Avould  agree  to  work  for  him  for  a  dollar  a  day. 

If  then,  he  should  saj^,  "alright,  go  on  now  and  go  to 
work!"  and  with  his  revolver  should  stand  guard  over  you 
while  you  worked,  and  when  you  had  finished  should  offer  you 
a  dollar  a  day  for  the  time  yon  worked,  and  you  should  re- 
fuse it  and  demand  $2  and  he  would  not  give  it,  and  you 
should  sue  him,  and  he  should  set  up  your  contract  for  $1 
and  you  should  show  that  the  contract  was  made  at  the  point 
of  a  revolver,  and  that  the  labor  was  done  at  the  point  of  a 
revolver,  and  that  $2  a  day  was  reasonable.  What  would  the 
court  do?  Why,  it  would  asy,  "the  contract  was  null  and 
void"  because  made  under  duress  and  would  allow  you  $2 
a  day  without  any  hesitation  whatever. 

Now  what  forced  you  to  agree  and  then  to  work  for  $1. 

A  revolver. 

What  forced  the  hired  man  to  agree  and  then  to  work  for 
$1  ?    Hunger. 

Why  did  you  agree?     To  save  your  life. 

Why  did  he  agree?     To  save  his  life. 

Is  there  any  difference?   No,  but  the  courts  have  made  one. 

Why?    Don't  know. 

Can  the  court  tell  ?    No,  it  follows  a  precedent. 


•3:1  THE  WAY  OUT. 

What  is  a  precedent!  It  is  a  mistake  some  other  court 
made. 

Suppose  the  hired  man  had  refused  to  work  for  $1  there 
being  no  other  show  for  him  to  get  work? 

Why,  he  would  have  had  to  beg  or  starve  and  go  naiied. 

Suppose  he  had  chosen  to  beg  and  go  naked? 

Then  the  man  that  offered  him  $1  (or  anybody  else)  could 
have  had  him  put  in  jail  as  a  vagrant,  or  for  indecent  ex- 
posure, or  both,  so  his  only  choice  w^as,  in  effect  (because  of 
course  he  would  not  choose  to  starve)  work  for  one  dollar  or 
go  to  jail ! 

How  many  men  to-day  are  working  for  less  than  reasonable 
wages  under  the  same  forced  conditions  as  that  hired  man? 

Here  is  a  sample  of  them.  Read  what  Cardinal  Gibbons 
says: 

Baltimore.  December  6,  1903 — "Wlien  the  employer  be- 
comes suddenly  rich,  while  the  toiler,  with  the  utmost  thrift 
and  economy,  can  scarcely  keep  the  wolf  from  the  door,  there 
is  something  really  wrong  in  our  social  and  economic  con- 
dition," declared  Cardinal  Gibbons  in  his  sermon  to-dav  at  the 
Cathedral,  in  which  he  condemned  "sweat-shops"  and  ap- 
pealed to  his  auditors  to  discriminate  in  making  purchases 
in  favor  of  employers  who  treat  their  employees  with  justice 
and  charity.  He  recommended  the  charitable  work  for  op- 
pressed toilers  conducted  by  the  consumers'  league.  The  text 
for  the  sermon  was  "Am  I  My  Brother's  Keeper?" 

"There  is  a  class  of  persons  in  Baltimore  who  are  employ- 
ed by  proprietors  of  large  clothing  establishments,"  contintt- 
ed  his  Eminence.  "Some  of  the  workers  are  employed  in  the 
stores,  others  make  garments  in  their  oAvn  homes  and  bring 
them  to  the  establishments.  ]\Tany  of  these  men  and  women 
are  compelled  to  toil  in  "sweat  shops,"  of  which  there  are 
eighteen  in  one  section  of  the  city,  contracted  in  space  and 
poorly  lighted  and  ventilated.  They  are  overworked  and  un- 
derpaid. 

"In  a  careful  investigation  I  have  discovered  that  after 
laboring  for  six  days  at  ten  or  twelve  hours  a  day,  their  week- 
ly compensation  amounts  to  $6  or  $8,  and  with  this  pittance 
they  have  to  pay  for  house  rent,  food  and  clothing  and  other 
expenses.  They  are  living  on  starving  wages;  the  result  is  that 
in  a  few  years  they  become  incapacitated  for  work. 


THE   AVAY  OUT.  33 


"THEY  DEMAND  FAIR  WAGES." 

"These  toilers  ask  for  no  alms.  All  they  demand  is  living 
v/aofes.  They  appeal  to  yoii  and  the  public  for  compensation 
and  consideration.     They  are  our  own  flesh  and  blood. 

"You  will  ask,  hoAv  can  we  help  them?  How  can  we  re- 
dress their  grievances?  You  may  not  be  able  to  aid  them 
directly,  but  you  can  do  so  indirectly  in  various  ways. 

"You  can  agitate  the  question.  By  agitating,  the  air  is 
stirred,  the  sky  is  cleared.  You  arouse  public  attention  to  a 
pressing  grievance.;  you  invoke  a  sympathy;  you  remove  the 
veil,  so  that  one-half  of  the  Avorld  can  see  how  the  other  half 
lives. 

"Thank  God,  there  are  in  Baltimore  some  clothing  houses 
that  treat  their  employees  with  justice  and  charity.  In  mak- 
ing purchases  you  can  discriminate  in  favor  of  these  establish- 
ments. You  will  thus  exercise  a  moral  pressure  on  the  op- 
pressors by  appealing  to  their  self-interest." 

How  many  more  are  refusing  to  be  forced  by  these  con- 
ditions, and  tramping  and  begging,  and  how  many  more  arc 
suffering  the  penalty  of  their  refusal,  in  jails,  charged  with 
vagrancy  ? 

You  who  have  observed  or  had  experience  may  answer  to 
suit  yourselves,  and  what  but  the  lack  of  law  is  responsible 
for  this  state  of  things  1 

Do  you  agree  or  disagree  with  Rev.  Thomas  B.  Gregory, 
who  Mrites  in  the  Examiner  (S.  F.)  of  August  9,  1903,  when 
he  says: 

"Human  necessity  is  more  sacred  than  any  institution, 
or  law,  or  theory.  In  the  presence  of  such  a  necessity  the 
holiest  things  must  take  a  back  track.  As  against  the  real 
hunger  of  a  human  being,  shew-bread  and  the  Sabbath  have 
no  rights  that  we  are  bound  to  respect.  The  holiest  is  man, 
and  all  the  other  holy  things— Church,  Sunday,  State  la^v■ — ■ 
are  man's  servants,  not  his  masters;  are  the  chariots  which 
are  to  carry  man  along  the  way  of  victory,  not  the  jugger- 
nauts which  are  to  crush  him." 

Is  that  good  sense,  or  is  it  nonsense?  ''Hnynan  necessity 
is  more  sacred  than  any  institution  or  law,"  he  says;  but  our 
law  does  not  say  so. 

AVhat  does  our  law  say?  As  interpreted  by  the  courts,  it 
says:  "A  little  contemptible  contract,  miade  by  a  hired  man 
under  conditions  of  necessity,  is  more  sacred  than  the  neces- 
sities of  the  man  or  his  family,  although  their  lives  be  in- 
volved. ' ' 

Think  of  it!  Holding  a  contract  sacred  that  was  entered 
into  through  necessity.  If  such  a  contract  is  sacred,  it  is  a 
sacred  swindle. 


34  THE  WAY  OUT. 

There  are  thousands,  yes.  tens  of  thousands  of  men,  Avomen 
and  children  working  to-day  for  a  mere  pittance  under  just 
such  contracts,  that  is.  contracts  they  were  forced  to  enter  into 
to  get  enought  to  keep  them  from  starving,  and  there  is  no 
law  to  interfere. 

Does  the  laV  suppose  a  man  who  knows  his  wife  and  little 
children  are  suffering  from  cold  or  hunger,  or  lack  of  clothes, 
is  going  to  stop  and  deliberate  on  the  terms  of  a  contract 
before  deciding  on  whether  or  not  he  will  go  to  work  and 
supply  them? 

If  they  were  in  the  upper  story  of  a  burning  building  and 

could  only  be  rescued  by  a  ladder  that  somebody  else  o^vned, 

would  he  wait  to  get  the  owner's  permission  before  using  it? 

If  they  were  being  carried  down  by  a  flood,  would  he  hunt 

the  owner  of  a  nearby  boat  before  taking  it? 

"What  good  would  it  do  him  am^-ay  to  deliberate  on  the 
wages  offered?  He  could  not  refuse,  no  matter  what  they 
were,  if  they  promised  some  relief. 

Think  of  the  law  dignifying  the  agreement  of  a  hungry 
man  to  work,  as  a  contract,  one  it  must  hold  to  be  sacred 
and  binding. 

Has  not  this  man  suffered  enough  with  anxiety  before  he 
got  a  job ;  waiting,  hoping,  tramping  and  asking  for  work  and 
being  refused? 

And  now,  after  he  has  it,  is  the  law  going  to  further  add 
to  his  miseries  by  standing  in  \vith  his  employer  and  help 
him  to  beat  him  out  of  fair  wages  on  the  flimsy  plea  that  he 
made  a  contract  ?•  Instead,  it  should  encourage  him  and  say, 
"My  man,  you  were  willing  to  work;  you  rustled  for  it; 
you  got  it  and  my  business  as  Law  is.  to  see  that  you  are 
properly  paid.  I  am  your  friend,  whether  you  have  another 
on  earth  or  not.  Your  employer  informs  me  he  made  a  con- 
tract with  you  as  to  wages.  Don't  let  that  trouble  you  in 
the  least.  I  will  look  into  all  the  facts.  If  I  find  the  wages 
specified  are  just,  I  will  hold  you  to  the  contract,  but  if  I 
find  they  are  not,  I  will  fix  them  at  what  I  consider  just, 
and  will  see  that  he  pays -them.  No  one  shall  make  a  tool  of 
me  to  help  rob  you."  (Note — Eead  "How  to  Stop  Strikes," 
etc.,  page  ) 

Don't  you  think  the  hired  man  would  be  happy  if  the  law 
talked  that  way  ?  And  would  not  employers  scowl  and  growl 
because  it  had  ceased  its  partiality  to  them? 

Had  the  law  always  talked  that  way,  would  here  have  been 
occasion  for  labor  unions?  Would  there  have  been  occasion 
'  for  ex-President  Grover  Cleveland  to  criticize  and  warn  em- 
ployers as  he  did  in  his  address  at  the  annual  banquet  of  the 
Commercial  Club  in  the  Auditorium  Hotel,  Chicago,  111., 
October  14th,  1903,  when  he  said  on  the  subject  of 

AMERICAN  GOOD  CITIZENSHIP: 

"We  are  told  that  the  national  splendor  we  have  built 


THE   WAY  OUT.  35 

upon  the  showy  ventures  of  speculative  wealth  is  a  badge  of 
our  success.  Unsharinp;  contentment  is  enjoined  upon  the 
mass  of  our  people,  and  they  are  invited,  in  the  bare  sub- 
sistence of  their  scanty  homes,  to  patriotically  rejoice  in  their 
country's  prosperity, 

"This  is  too  unsubstantial  an  enjoyment  of  benefits  to  sat- 
isfy those  who  have  been  taught  American  equality;  and 
thus  has  arisen,  by  a  perfectly  natural  process,  a  dissatisfied 
insistence  upon  a  better  distribution  of  the  results  of  our 
vaunted  prosperity.  We  now  see  its  worst  manifestation 
in  the  apparently  incorrigible  dislocation  of  the  proper  rela- 
tions between  labor  and  capital. 

"This,  of  itself,  is  sufficiently  distressing;  but  thoughtful 
men  are  not  without  dread  of  sadder  developments  yet  to 
come." 

Mr.  Cleveland  is  smart  enough  to  see  a  storm  coming,  and 
is  frank  enough  to  admit  it  and  tell  what  is  bringing  it  on: 
"The  bare  subsistance  of  their  scanty  homes,"  and  "too 
unsubstantial  an  enjoyment  of  benefits  to  satisfy." 

Whom?  Hired  men,  of  course.  He  means  to  tell  his 
rich  listeners  of  that  club  that  the  hired  men  are  not  getting 
a  fair  share  of  the  country's  "vaunted  prosperity,"  that  is, 
enough  tvages  in  proportion  to  what  they  get;  that  the  em- 
ployers are  too  greedy  and  take  too  large  a  percentage  of 
what  their  hired  men  produce;  that  the  hired  men  have 
found  it  out,  and  are  making  a  fuss  about  it,  and  will  con- 
tinue to  make  a  fuss,  and  that  they  had  better  be  looking  out, 
because  there  Avill  be  "sadder  developments"  yet. 

The  point  made  in  Mr.  Cleveland's  address  is  that  hired 
men  are  not  fairly  paid.  This  is  the  admission  of  a  capital- 
ist to  capitalists  accompanied  by  a  warning.  He  fails  to 
give  them  anv  advice  how  to  avert  the  "sadder  develop- 
ments;" w'hether  to  pay  more  wages  or  to  organize  and  fight 
or  otherwise.  He  only  says,  by  way  of  warning,  "look 
out,  its  coming ! ' ' 

As  a  smart  man  talking  to  smart  men,  he  could  not  in- 
dulge in  sentimental  gush  as  President  Roosevelt  often  does 
when  talking  to  the  galleries,  the  common  people.  He  could 
not  say,  "Now.  you  business  gentlemen,  ought  first  to  learn 
to  be  good.  You  ought  to  learn  that  'honesty  is  the  best 
policy;'  you  ought  to  pay  your  hired  men  fair  wages.  You 
should  remember,  as  Mr.  Roosevelt  says,  that  Sve  must  act 
upon  the  motto  of  all  for  each,  and  each  for  all;  that  the 
welfare  of  each  of  us  is  dependent  fundamentally  upon  the 
the  welfare  of  all  of  us.'  You  Imow,  as  he  further  says,  *we- 
must  see  that  each  is  uiiven  a  square  deal,  because  he  is  en- 
titled to  no  more  and  should  receive  no  less'  (Roosevelt  at 
State  Fair,  New  York,  September  7th,  1903).  Those  are 
the  principles  you  business  men  should  do  business  on,  so  I 
say  to  you  again,  you  ought  to  be  good,  and,  as  Mr.  Roose- 
velt also  says,  'I  have  the  right  to  challenge  the  best  effort 


36  THE  WAY  OUT. 

of  every  American  v.-orthy  of  the  name  in  putting  down  ly 
evevy  means  in  his  power  corruption  in  private  life.'  " 
(Roosevelt  at  New  York  Avenue  Presbyterian  Church  Cen- 
tennial, November  16th,  1903.)  Mr.  Cleveland  could  not 
talk  in  that  strain  to  his  audience  of  business  men.  but  no 
doubt,  the  audience  of  common  people  that  heard  President 
Koosevelt  talk  in  that  way  yelled  themselves  hoarse  with  pat- 
riotic ardor,  Avhen,  if  he  had  talked  so  to  the  Commercial 
Club  Mr.  Cleveland  talked  to,  he  would  have  been  laughed 
at  as  soon  as  his  back  was  turned. 

The  difference  in  the  complexion  of  the  different  audiences 
accounts  for  the  differences  of  utterance. 

Mr.  Cleveland  was  adressing  men  of  business,  who  were 
in  business  solely  for  gain  and  he  was  too  shrewd  to  say, 
"Gentlemen,  in  business,  you  must  act  upon  the  motto  of  'all 
for  each  and  each  for  all.'  In  business,  you  must  see  that 
everybody  has  a  'square  deal.'  " 

But  tlie  President  was  talking  to  a  different  crowd;  he 
could  and  did. 

One  audience  was  composed  of  men  engaged  in  intense  com- 
mercial competition,  and  every  man  was  skilled  in  and  daily 
practiced  all  the  refined  and  unrefined  known  methods  of 
skinning  everybody,  to  score  success;  and,  to  have  told  them, 
as  a  matter  of  business,  to  not  skin  their  hired  men,  would 
have  fallen  flat,  decidedly  flat. 

Prasident  Eoosevelt's  audience  was  composed  of  competi- 
tive people  also,  but  their  methods  of  competing  had  not  been 
keyed  up  to  the  high-straining  tension  of  the  methods  prac- 
ticed by  Mr.  Cleveland's  audience,  so  it  was  too  dull  to  de- 
tect any  conflict  between  its  daily  business  life  and  the  Pres- 
ident's sentimentalisms  and  innocently  applauded  what,  ac- 
cording to  its  interests  and  practices  (for  each,  in  a  small 
way,  was  always  trying  to  get  the  best  of  the  other),  it 
should  have  hissed.  Had  President  Roosevelt  talked  the  same 
way  to  ^Ir.  Cleveland's  audience,  it  might  not  have  hissed 
him,  out  of  respect  for  his  high  office,  but  it  certainly  would 
have  thought  hisses. 

AVHAT  PRESIDENT  ROOSEVELT  AND  MR.  CLEVE- 
LAND, IN  ALL  CANDOR,  SHOULD  HAVE  SAID. 

What  the  President  and  ex-President  should  have  said,  to 
dispell  all  doubts  as  to  their  candor  and  patriotism,  was  this, 
when  talking  to  their  respective  audiences,  the  President 
should  have  said,  "Gentlemen,  you  are  all  engaged  in  com- 
petition; you  ought  to  act  upon  the  motto  of  'all  for  each 
and  each  for  all, '  but  the  competitive  system  will  not  let  you. 
Before  you  can  do  it,  you  must  wipe  out  competition  so  far 
as  it  is  necessary  to  prevent  it  from  interfering  with  your  act- 
ing in  accordance  with  that  motto;  and  you  can  wipe  it  out 
only  by  changing  the  law,  which  I  heartily  recommend  you 
to  do.      To  the  extent  that  you  succeed  by  law  in  abolishing 


THE   AVAY  OUT.  37 

competition,  yon  will  be  able  to  give  each  other  a  'square 
deal'  and  nobody  hurt." 

You  would  at  the  same  time  wipe  out,  practically,  all  dis- 
putes between  capital  and  labor,  which  are  causing  so  much 
inconvenience  and  distress  to  all  classes. 

If  the  President  had  talked  that  way,  he  would  have  told 
them  an  obvious  truth,  besides  something  that  was  in  perfect 
accord  with  his  advice  that  "all  should  live  for  each  and  each 
for  all."  As  it  was,  he  left  half  of  what  he  should  have  said 
unsaid.       He  did  not  tell  them  how  they  could  do  it. 

Mr.  Cleveland  should  have  said,  if  he  was  not  afraid  of 
woundins:  the  business  side  of  the. brain  of  his  auditors,  "gen- 
tlemen, I  warn  you  that  when  you  enjoin  unsharing  content- 
ment upon  the  masses  of  our  people  and  invite  them  in  the 
bare  subsistence  of  their  scanty  homes  to  patriotically  rejoice 
in  their  country's  prosperity,  you  are  making  a  fatal  mistake. 

"This  is  too  unsubstantial  an  enjoyment  of  benefits  to  sat- 
isfy those  who  have  been  taught  American  equality,  and  as 
a  perfectly  natural  result,  they  have  become  dissatisfied  and 
insist  upon  a  more  equal  distribution  of  the  results  of  our 
vaunted  prosperity. 

"This  has  greatly  impaired  the  harmonious  relations  that 
formerly  existed  between  capital  and  labor,  and  depend  upon 
it,  they  will  continue  to  grow  worse  at  ruinous  cost  to  both, 
unless  something  right  is  done  to  avert  it.  And  some  day, 
not  far  off,  there  will  come  a  death  struggle  between  you  and 
labor  for  the  mastery,  and  no  one  can  predict  the  outcome. 

"Laboring  men  have  organized,  or  are  rapidly  organizing, 
and  it  is  for  a  purpose.  You  have  not  been  just  to  them. 
As  you  got  control  of  the  land  and  machinery,  they,  as  in- 
dividuals seeking  employment,  were  placed  more  and  more 
in  your  power  and  you  dictated  the  terms  and  conditions  of 
employment  and  scaled  down  wages,  yet  boasted  of  the  coun- 
try's prosperity  until  you  forced  them  to  organize  lor  their 
ow^n  protection,  and  to  force  you  to  do  better  b}'  them  than 
yoit  had  shown  a  willingness  to  do  voluntarily. 

"That,  gentlemen,  is  the  situation  that  confronts  you  and 
the  whole  of  it.  You  know  you  and  your  hired  men  have  been 
pulling  and  hauling  over  the  subject  of  w^ages  for  years;  you 
also  know,  there  never  was  a  feeling  of  stability  and  secttrity 
among  you,  even  after  you  had  come  to  an  understanding,  be- 
cause of  market  fluctuations  that  affected  the  value  of  your 
goods  or  the  cost  of  their  living,  and  there  never  was  any 
law  that  either  of  you  could  'appeal  to  for  the  proper  ad- 
justment of  the  peculiar  and  alarming  differences  that  arose 
between  you. 

"As  a  result  of  this  absence  of  law,  you  have  relied  upon 
your  ownership  and  control  of  things  and  your  wealth,  in- 
fleunce  and  power  to  force  your  hired  men  into  submission 
to  your  terms ;  while  they  have  relied  upon  the  perfect  dis- 
cipline of  their  great  and  growing  organization  to  force  vou 

26281'? 


38  THE  WAY  OUT. 

into  submission  to  theirs,  and  conditions  have  become  more 
serious  every  year.  It  is  now  either  a  strike  or  a  lock-out  all 
the  time,  greatly  to  the  annoyance  and  detriment  of  the  coun- 
try and  at  great  loss,  even  ruin,  to  those  directly  affected, 
besides  loss  of  life  resulting  from  inevitable  collisions. 

"It  is  manifestly  wrong  and  disastrous  for  either  of  you 
to  continue  trying  to  be  a  law  unto  yourselves  (for  that  is 
what  you  are  both  trying  to  do).  Such  a  course  can  never 
satisfactorily  solve  your  disputes.  It  is  impracticable  and 
impossible. 

"If  it  is  true,  as  I  say,  and  it  certainly  is,  that  no  law 
reaches  your  troubles,  make  one !  There  is  no  such  thing  as 
a  condition  that  the  law  of  the  land  cannot  be  made  to  cover, 
and  it  would  be  a  reproach  upon  the  intelligence  of  our  peo- 
ple to  admit  that  they  are  unequal  to  any  emergency  that 
demands  one.  Make  the  law!  And  when  it  is  appealed  to 
by  either  side,  its  decision  will  be  respected  because  the  whole 
power  of  the  nation  will  be  behind  it.  It  would  aim  to  do 
justice,  and  your  respective  rights  and  interCvSts  would  suffer 
far  less  than  under  your  present  methods  of  guerilla  warfare 
where  you  invoke  the  assistance  of  only  such  outside  laws  and 
forces  as  serve  your  purposes  to  conquer. 

"A  law  broad  enough  to  hear  and  consider  every  grievance 
of  every  side  would  bring  with  it  an  era  of  good  feeling  and 
industrial  harmony  that  would  reduce  all  labor  trouble  to  a 
minimum. " 

But.  Mr.  Cleveland  did  not  make  that  kind  of  a  speech 
to  the  Commercial  Club.  Why  he  did  not,  you  are  left  to 
guess.  My  own  idea  is,  they  did  not  want  it.  nor  did  they 
want,  nor  do  they  now,  any  law.  They  probably  thought 
their  wealth  and  power  would  be  sufficient  to  worry  the  hired 
men  into  subjection;  and  then  the  laws,  as  they  are,  with 
the  police,  sheriffs.  United  States  marshals,  hired  detectives 
and  militia  always  at  their  service,  they  could  keep  them 
in  subjection  while  they  skinned  them  indefinitely. 

If  that  is  their  idea  and  they  can  make  it  work,  there  is 
no  doubt  but  what,  from  their  standpoint  they  are  right,  for, 
as  they  look  at  it,  as  the  Weekly  Examiner  (San  Francisco) 
says:  "To  ruin  competitors,  to  reduce  a  man  from  compe- 
tence to  poverty,  is  considered  as  but  an  ordinary  incident 
of  business,"  and  that  being  such  a  small  matter,  of  course 
the  consumption  of  hired  men  by  overwork  and  insufficient 
pay  is  also  an  ordinary  incident  of  business  no  more  to  be 
thought  of  than  the  consumption  of  cordwood  and  coal  in  their 
furnaces;  both  are  plentiful  and  Avere  made  to  increase  the 
profits  of  capitalists. 


THE   WAY  OUT.  39 


HAS  A  HIRED  MAN  ANY  RIGHTS? 

If  we  judge  of  his  rights  by  the  treatment  he  receives  from 
his  employer,  we  must  say,  yes,  he  has  about  the  same  rights 
his  employer's  cattle  have,  not  much  more,  and  the  more  is 
of  no  particular  benefit  to  him.  He  gets  what  his  employer 
decides  to  give  him  and  the  cattle  get  the  same. 

Do  you  say  that  is  not  so?  Well,  don't  the  employer  fix 
his  wages,  and  don't  the  wages  he  gets  regulate  his  bed,  board 
and  clothes?  If  he  fixes  his  wages,  then  he  specifies  what 
kind  of  a  room  and  bed  he  may  occupy,  what  kind  of  food 
he  may  eat,  and  what  kind  of  clothes  he  may  wear,  as  much 
as  he  specifies  what  kind  of  stable  his  ox  or  horse  may  occupy, 
what  kind  of  feed  shall  be  given  him  and  how  much  groom- 
ing he  shall  receive. 

It  would  not  be  so  if  the  man  had  the  option  of  refusing 
the  wages,  but  he  has  not,  any  more  than  the  ox  or  horse  has 
of  refusing  to  w^ork  for  what  he  gets — both  have  to  eat. 

"But  does  not  the  law  protect  the  hired  man?" 

If  it  does,  you  stop  and  think  and  tell  yourself  how  it 
does.     I  cannot,  but  I  can  tell  you  how  it  does  not. 

There  is  a  law  for  the  punishment  of  the  employer  if  he 
cruelly  overworks  of  underfeeds  the  ox  or  horse,  but  there  is 
none  to  punish  him  if  he  cruelly  overworks  or  underpays  a 
man,  boy,  woman  or  girl. 

If  he  hires  with  no  agreement  as  to  how  much  his  wages 
shall  be,  and  his  employer  trys  to  pay  him  off  when  he  quits 
with  less  than  reasonable  w^ages,  he  may  sue  and  the  law  will 
compel  the  employer  to  pay  reasonable  wages. 

"There.     Don't  you  admit  the  law  protects  him?" 

Certainly,  in  that  case  it  would,  if  it  would  pay  him  to  in- 
voke it. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  seldom  the  employer  is  caught  in 
that  fix.  He  usually  takes  advantage  of  the  man's  eagerness 
to  work,  and  tells  him  beforehand  how  much  wages  he  will 
pay.  If  the  man  goes  to  work  after  being  told,  the  law  calls 
that  a  contract  and  holds  him  to  it.  The  courts  are  sticklers, 
you  know,  about  impairing  the  obligations  of  a  contract,  be- 
cause they  say  that  would  be  unconstitutional. 

But  it  is  a  rare  thing  that  this  law,  which  is  nothing  new 
— it  is  older  than  the  Bible — does  the  hired  man  any  good, 
because  he  is  so  poor  he  cannot  afford  the  expense  and  loss 
of  time  to  go  to  law  with  his  rich  employer,  and  therefore 
takes  what  he  can  get  rather  than  do  it. 

"Well,  that  is  not  the  fault  of  the  law ;  the  law  is  all  right." 

Certainly,  the  law  is  all  right,  for  the  rich ;  it  provides  also 
a  docket  fee  to  be  deposited  when  complaint  is  filed  and  that 
the  officer  serving  the  papers  shall  demand  his  fee  in  advance; 
and  if  the  man  wants  a  jury-,  which,  of  course,  he  would  in 


40  THE  WAY  OUT. 

order  to  get  justice,  it  requires  him  to  put  up  twenty-four  dol- 
lars more  (if  in  the  Justice  of  the  Peace  Court  in  California), 
altogether  about  thirty  dollars,  even  if  his  lawyer  asks  no  re- 
tainer. The  law  therefore  contemplates  that  all  hired  men 
have  a  bank  account,  which,  of  course,  we  all  know  is  the  fact. 

Of  late  years,  the  laAv  has  become  very  solicitous  for  the 
rights  of  hired  men,  by  giving  them  liens  on  certain  things 
for  their  wages.  Of  course,  that  is  a  great  boom.  The  only 
trouble  with  it  is,  the  Supreme  Court  has  construed  it  and 
the  Legislaure  has  amended  it  until  even  lawyers  do  not  know 
what  it  is;  and  if  a  hired  man  wished  to  avail  himself  of  its 
benefits,  if  it  has  any,  it  is  such  an  expensive  and  uncertain 
quantity,  that,  in  most  eases,  he  would  rather  lose  the  debt 
than  try  it. 

As  to  law  that  would  give  a  hired  man  damages  for  in- 
juries, or  his  family  damages  if  he  were  killed,  being  the 
result  of  the  negligence  of  his  employer,  it  is  so  far  beyond 
the  limits  of  the  depleted  purse  of  either  that  it  cuts  more  of 
a  figure  on  the  statute  books  as  an  ornament  to  our  vaunted 
civilization  than  a  practical  benefit  to  crippled  hired  men, 
widows  or  orphans.  A  trip  to  the  moon  in  Darius  Green's 
flying  machine  would  be  about  as  encouraging  an  undertak- 
ing to  the  hired  man,  or  his  widow,  as  to  undertake  bv  law  to 
make  his  employer  pay  suitable  damages  for  injuries  or 
death. 

What  the  hired  man  wants  is  laws  that  are  within  his 
reach.  No  amount  of  law  would  benefit  him  a  particle  if  the 
machinery  to  set  it  in  motion  to  inquire  into  his  wrongs  w'as 
so  heavy  and  complicated  that  he  could  not  start  it.  But 
that  just  suits  his  employer,  he  wants  it  that  way.  He 
wants  it  as  it  is.  And  his  paid  orators  can  and  do,  in  glow- 
ing eloquence,  call  the  hired  man's  attention  to  our  beneficent 
laws  for  their  welfare,  of  the  jury  system  and  all  that,  but 
they  are  very  quiet  as  to  the  cost  and  other  difficulties  of 
getting  the  welfare. 

Ever  since  ships  have  sailed  the  ocean  sailors  have  been  the 
wards  of  the  admiralty  courts  because  of  their  peculiar  help- 
lessness, and  I  would  ask,  is  it  not  about  time  that  hired 
men,  in  their  helplessness,  be  made  the  -wards  of  the  law 
courts  ? 

Sailors  have  ahvays  been  looked  upon  as  children  in  the 
hands  of  ship  owners  and  masters  of  vessels,  and  the  ad- 
miralty courts  of  all  nations  have  always  been  open  to  them, 
without  fees  or  costs,  to  libel  a  ship  for  wages  and  have  it 
seized  and  sold  to  satisfy  them :  and  I  would  ask  again,  are 
the  hired  men  on  shore  anything  more  than  children  in  the 
hands  of  such  men  as  George  F.  Baer,  John  D.  Rockefeller. 
J.  Pieipont  Morgan  or  Charles  M.  Schwab,  or  any  railroad 
company  or  corporation?  There  are  no  employers  nowa- 
days, you  know,  to  speak  of,  but  corporations  and  the  very 
rich. 


THE   WAY  OUT.  41 

Think  of  it,  you  toilers!  Think  of  a  poor  man  with  a 
hunory  family  of  little  ones,  tellinsf  one  of  those  men  or 
corporations  that  he  would  be  willino^  to  consider  a  contract 
to  work  for  him  or  it  at  certain  wages;  or,  put  it  the  other 
way,  think  of  one  of  them  asking  such  a  man  if  he  would  be 
willing  to  consider  employment  (shoveling  dirt,  for  instance) 
at  certain  wages.  Yet  the  law  treats  eyery  hired  man  as  if 
he  was  hired  in  just  that  way,  although  every  judge  knows  he 
is  not.       Well,  you  may  think,  but  you  will  never  see  it. 

They  arbitrarily  fix  the  wages  they  will  pay,  knowing  there 
are  plenty  of  destitute  men  whom  the  gnawings  of  hunger 
will  drive  to  them  seeking  work  at  any  price ;  and  it  is  noth- 
ing less  than  the  meanest  hypocrisy  for  any  court  or  the  law 
(if  the  law  does)  to  pretend  that  that  kind  of  a  bargain  is 
a  voluntary  contract. 

If  they  were  to  use  violence  to  get  men,  they  could  not 
get  them  any  quicker,  but  they  would  not  dare  do  that.  The 
law  would  wake  up  instantly,  if  they  did,  and  punish  them ; 
so  they  have  a  way  that  is  more  effective  than  violence,  less 
expensive  and  no  law  to  interfere. 

It  is  a  kid-glove  way,  polite  and  highly  honorable,  because 
the  law,  as  it  is  made  or  construed,  makes  it  so;  yet  violence, 
in  any  form,  could  not  be  more  effective  to  make  men  work 
at  an  arbitrary  price  fixed  by  the  employer,  or  more  disas- 
trous to  their  welfare.  Controlling  every  industry  that  em- 
ployes men,  the  capitalists  control  the  output  and  can  shut 
down  and  lock-out  at  any  place  or  time  they  please,  and  re- 
main so  until  want  has  driven  part  of  those  discharged  to 
wander  in  search  of  work,  and  those  who  stay,  to  welcome  it 
at  any  price. 

In  this  lawful  way,  they  may  starve  men  to  work  on  their 
terms  or  force  them  from -necessity  to  reluctantly  go  and  help 
out  some  other  capitalist,  who  is  involved  in  a  strike,  by  be- 
coming strike-breakers,  thus  defeating  the  efforts  of  their 
brothers  to  obtain  just  wages  or  fair  treatment  from  their 
employer;  which,  but  for  this  timely  co-operation  and  assist- 
ance, he  would  have  been  compelled  to  grant. 

Here  is  just  such  a  case  according  to  an  Associated  Press 
dispatch,  November,  1903 : 

"The  Colorado  Iron  and  Coal  Company  have  laid  off  the 
men  in  their  iron  works,  and  are  trying  to  get  them  to  take  the 
places  of  the  striking  coal  miners." 

Another  Associated  Press  dispatch  savs :  ' '  Shamokin,  Penn., 
Nov.  30,  1903— The  Centralia  Sioux  &  Mt.  Carmel  Collieries, 
owned  by  the  Lehigh  Coal  Co.,  closed  down  tonight  for  an 
indefinite  period,  throwing  2500  men  and  boys  out  of  em- 
ployment. ' ' 

No  explanation  or  excuse  is  offered,  but  as  winter  is  just 
setting  in,  it  is  not  because  people  "will  not  want  the  coaJ, 
so  it  must  be  done  in  pursuance  of  the  plan  of  the  coal  trust 


42  THE  WAY  OUT, 

to  keep  up  prices  and  incidentally  to  starve  more  men  into 
going  to  Colorado  to  become  strike-breakers. 

But  there  is  no  law  to  interfere  with  mine  owners.  It  is 
of  no  consequence  to  the  law  if  this  shut-down  and  lock-out 
compels  people  to  pay  more  for  coal  this  winter  than  they 
would  need  to  if  these  2500  men  and  boys  were  allowed  to 
work,  nor  is  it  of  any  consequence  to  the  law  if  these  men  and 
boys  must  suffer  because  deprived  of  the  privilege  of  work- 
ing to  earn  food  for  themselves  and  provide  cheaper  coal  for 
others.  T  say  it  is  of  no  consequence  to  the  law  for  the  rea- 
son that  the  law  could,  but  does  not  take  any  notice  of  these 
things.  It  does  nothing  to  prevent  them  from  happening  at 
the  pleasure  of  those  whom  it  permits  to  control  the  necessi- 
ties of  life. 

Ownership  is  superior  to  life.  The  law  protects  it  as  some- 
thing sacred.  The  people  are  nothing,  they  may  freeze  and 
starve. 


THE   WAY  OUT.  43 


A  PEW  EXAMPLES  OF  THE  POWER  OF  EMPLOY- 
ERS OVER  THE  LIVES  OF  HIRED  MEN,  WHO 
HAVE  NO  LAW  FOR  THEIR  PROTECTION. 

NO   LAW   FOR    HIRED   MEN   IN   ILLINOIS. 

"Chicago,  Nov.  30,  1903. — Following  its  announced  policy 
of  centralization,  the  International  Harvester  Co.  has 
decided  to  lay  off  7500  of  its  19,000  employes  and  thus  effect 
a  saving  of  $5,000,000  a  year." 

Who  gets  it  1  What  becomes  of  men  ?  More  turned  loose 
hoping,  some  will  get  hungry  and  become  strike-breakers? 

"Chicago,  Dec.  4,  1903. — An  industrial  war,  long  ex- 
pected, has  broken  out  in  the  Fox  River  Valley  in  Northern 
Illinois,  manufacturers  at  Batavia,  Aurora,  Elgin,  St.  Charles 
and  Geneva,  having  organized  and  decided  to  increase  the 
hours  of  labor  from  nine  to  ten.  The  first  notice  was  served 
by  manufacturers  at  Batavia  and  350  machinists  quit  work 
there  today.  The  wage-earners  are  united  and  will  resist. 
The  industries  likely  to  be  affected  include  many  lines  from 
shirts  to  windmills.  The  manufacturers  in  the  organization 
employ,  it  is  estimated,  10,000  wage-earners." 

"Chicago,  Dee.  9,  1903. — Ten  hours  a  day,  no  union 
agreement,  or  no  M^ork  for  an  indefinite  period,  is  the  ulti- 
matum issued  by  three  more  big  manufacturing  concerns, 
members  of  the  Fox  River  Valley  Manufacturers'  Associa- 
tion of  Northern  Illinois.  These  concerns  are  located  at 
Batavia,  and  they  have  1500  union  employes.  A  general 
strike  is  expected  Monday." 

Surrender  or  go  hungry;  that  is  what  the  employers  are 
saying  to  union  men. 

"Chicago,  Dec.  14,  1903.— Three  factories  in  the  Fox 
River  manufacturing  district  of  Northern  Illinois,  employ- 
ing 1500  hands,  shut  down  to-day  as  the  result  of  the  recent 
campaign  of  the  Manufacturers'  Association  to  re-establish 
a  ten-hour  work-day. ' ' 

"Joliet,  111.,  Dec.  14,  1903.— All  three  rod  mills  at  the 
Joliet  plant  of  the  Illinois  Steel  Co.  closed  today  for  an  in- 
definite period,  throwing  500  men  out  of  employment." 

They  do  just  as  they  please.      No  law  protects  the  men. 

NO  LAW  TO  PROTECT  LABORERS  IN   LOUISIANA, 

"NeAv  Orleans,  Oct.  10,  1903.— Protected  by  half  of 
the  police  force  and  twenty  deputies  and  marshals,  the  St. 
Louis  strike-breakers  are  put  to  work  on  the  levee  and  work 
all  day  without  molestation.  Escaping  strike-breakers  from 
the  housing  ship  Colonian  declare  that  the  ship  is  loaded 
with  ammiTii+ion  and  arms,  and  that  armed  guards  prevent 


44  THE  WAY  OUT. 

the  strike-breakers,  who  were  brought  here  without  knowledge 
of  a  strike,  from  leaving  the  ship  and  joining  the  strikers  with 
whom  they  sympathized." 

Even  men  sent  to  break  strike  are  deceived  and  made  to 
work  against  their  will. 

NO  LAW  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  FOR   OPPRESSED   t.aBOR,    BUT  PLENTY 
OF  MILITIA  TO  DO  THE  BIDDING  OF  THE  COAL  OWNERS, 

"Wilkesbarre,  Penn.,  August  29,  1902. — General  Gobin 
has  ordered  the  soldiers  to  shoot  to  kill  if  there  is  any 
trouble  to-morrow,  and  an  attack  will  mean  the  killing  and 
wounding  of  many.  While  martial  law  has  not  yet  been 
proclaimed.  General  Gobin 's  statement  issued  tonight  means 
practically  the  same  thing.  He  says:  'The  conditions  are 
outrageous,  but  the  law  is  going  to  be  enforced  at  whatever 
the  cost  and  at  once.  To-morrow  morning  the  soldiers  will 
go  out  with  loaded  guns,  and  they  will  take  the  men  who  want 
to  work  to  the  mines.  If  there  is  any  interference,  any  at- 
tack or  any  refusal  to  obey  orders,  they  will  shoot  to  kill.'  " 

In  1902  about  150,000  coal  miners  in  Pennsylvania  struck 
for  living  wages  and  were  refused.  After  several  months, 
extending  into  the  winter  of  1902  and  1903,  when  there  was 
great  suffering  among  the  people,  who  could  not  pay  the 
greatly  increased  price  of  coal,  put  on,  not  because  of  its 
pf^arcity,  but  arbitrarily  by  a  combination  to  make  money, 
President  Roosevelt  was  induced  by  public  opinion  to  inter- 
fere, and  he  finally  got  the  owners  to  consent  to  submit  all 
matters  involved  in  the  strike  dispute  to  a  commission  to  be 
appointed  by  him.  On  this  arrangement,  the  minere  went 
back  to  work.  The  commission  heard  both  sides  fully  and  de- 
cided in  favor  of  the  miners,  granting  substantially  all  they 
had  asked. 

Just  think  of  it  I  Pennsylvania  was  one  of  the  original 
thirteen  States  of  the  Union,  and  had  been  making  laws  ever 
since;  yet  never  made  one  these  men  could  appeal  to  to  obtain 
just  wages  or  treatment,  and  corporations,  worth  hundreds 
of  millions  of  dollars,  were  permitted  to  treat  their  hired  men 
like  slaves,  with  the  difference  that  they  could  not  stand 
them-  up  on  an  auction  block  to  be  sold  to  the  highest  bidder. 
In  other  respects,  their  power  over  their  lives  was  as  abso- 
lute as  was  ever  the  power  of  a  slave  owner  before  the  Civil 
War. 

Because  there  was  no  law,  they  tried  to  make  use  of  their 
wealth,  influence  and  power  to  stars^e  their  over-worked  and 
underpaid  men  into  submission  to  such  arbitrary  terms  of 
employment  as  it  pleased  thera  to  dictate,  and  a  capitalistic 
governor  even  placed  the  militia  of  the  State  at  their  service 
by  display  of  force  to  intimidate  the  miners  and  aid  and 
abet  the  owners  in  satisfying  their  greed. 

Perhaps  you  will  ask,  "Did  the  miners  have  no  friends?" 
Yes,  among  the  common  people,  but  not  in  any  law.       Law 


THE   WAY  OUT.  45 

was  not  made  for  them.  It  was  made  for  the  rich.  Had' 
the  principle  this  book  contends  for  been  law,  there  would 
have  been  no  strike,  no  suffering  from  lack  of  coal  to  keep 
warm,  and  no  losses. 

As  it  M^as,  the  losses  sustained  the  first  fifteen  weeks  were 
reported  as  follows: 

"Wilkesbarre,  August  23,  1903.— At  the  end  of  the 
fifteenth  week  of  the  strike,  the  estimated  losses  are  as 
follows : 

Loss  to  operators  in  price  of  coal $35,700,000 

Loss  to  strikers  in  wages 19,900,000 

Loss  to  employes,  other  than  miners,  idle  by- 
strike  ." 4,500,000 

Loss  to  business  men  in  coal  regions 12,120,000 

Loss  to  business  men  outside  region 6,700,000 

Cost  of  maintaining  coal  and  iron  police.  . .  .  900,000 

Cost  of  maintaining  non-union  workers 400,000 

Damage  to  mines  and  machinery 6,500,000 

Cost  of  maintaining  troops  in  the  field 220,000 

'      Total    $86,940,000" 

Why  was  not  arbitration  resorted  to  sooner?  Because 
the  owners,  vain  with  wealth  and  power,  disdainfully  said: 
"We  have  nothing  to  arbitrate." 

Senator  Mark  Hanna  and  othere  tried  to  get  the  coal 
owners  to  agree  to  a  conference  with  the  men,  but  gave  it  up. 
He  said :  "I  have  exhausted  my  efforts,  I  have  done  all  in  my 
power  and  can  do  no  more.  I  will  make  no  further  attempts, 
for  it  would  be  useless.  There  is  no  chance  of  arbitration 
so  long  as  only  one  side,  the  miners,  was  willing  to  arbitrate. ' ' 

We  get  an  idea  of  the  views  of  men  w^ho  have  "nothing 
to  arbitrate,"  from  a  letter  written  by  President  Baer  of  the 
Pennsylvania  &  Reading  Railroad  Company.  The  following 
dispatch  tells  the  story : 

"Wilkesbarre,  August  20,  1903.— W.  F.  Clark,  a 
photographer  of  this  city,  recently  addressed  a  letter  to  Presi- 
dent Baer,  appealing  to  him,  as  a  Christian,  to  settle  the 
miners'  strike.  The  writer  said  that  if  Christ  were  taken 
into  our  business  affairs  there  would  be  less  trouble  in  the 
world,  and  that  if  Mr.  Baer  granted  the  strikers  a  slight  con- 
cession they  would  gladly  return  to  work  and  the  president 
of  the  Philadelphia  &  Reading  Railroad  Company  would  have 
the  blessing  of  God  and  the  respect  of  the  nation." 

President  Baer  replied  as  follows: 

"I  see  you  are  evidently  biased  in  your  religious  views  in 
favor  of  the  right  of  the  workingman  to  control  a  business 
in  which  he  has  no  other  interest  than  to  secure  fair  wages  for 
the  work  he  does.  I  beg  of  you  not  to  be  discouraged.  The 
rights  and  interests  of  the  laboring  man  will  be  protected 
and  cared  for,  not  by  the  labor  agitators,  but  by  the  Christian 


46  THE  WAY  OUT. 

men  to  whom  God  in  His  infinite  wisdom  has  given  the  con- 
trol of  the  property  interests  of  the  country.  Pray  earnest- 
ly that  the  right  may  triumph,  always  remembering  that  the 
XiOrd  God  Omnipotent  still  reigns  and  that  his  reign  is  one 
of  law  and  order,  and  not  of  violence  and  crime." 

We  also  get  an  idea  from  the  following  published  criti- 
cisms of  how  the  country  construed  what  Mr.  Baer  wrote: 

'^BAER   IS  DENOUNCED   ALL   O'S^R   THE  COUNTRY, 

"New  York,  August  21,  1902.— President  Baer,  of  the 
Philadelphia  &  Reading  Railroad,  has  shocked  the  country 
with  his  remarkable  letter  ascribing  the  possession  of  the  coal 
fields  by  himself  and  his  associates  to  Divine  intention. 

"From  every  side  has  come  a  gale  of  caustic  and  aston- 
ished comments. 

"A  priest  is  quoted,  a  political  economist  gives  his  views, 
one  of  the  largest  capitalists  in  the  world  expresses  his  amaze- 
ment, and  two  lawyers  of  distinction  testify  to  the  universal 
surprise  at  the  queer  opinions  of  President  Baer." 

"So  President  Baer  thinks  that  God  gave  the  mines  to  the 
operators  and  that  the  miners  are  simply  interested  in  re- 
ceiving their  wages  each  week,  does  he?"  Russel  Sage  ex- 
plained. "Well,  I  would  not  be  surprised  if  President  Baer 
woke  up  some  morning  and  found  that  God  had  given  IMr. 
Morgan  the  mines  and  ever>'thing  else  in  sight ;  however,  I 
believe  the  mines  were  designed  for  the  common  good  of  the 
people,  and  the  manner  in  which  they  are  worked  is  of  vital 
importance  to  the  miners." 

W.  Bourke  Cochrane  made  the  following  strong  comment : 

"I  don't  believe  that  in  creating  the  coal  mines  or  other 
sources  of  commodities,  God  had  in  view  the  bestowal  of  them 
upon  the  present  owners.  I  believe  that  all  natural  products 
were  created  by  God  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  human 
race.  As  coal,  like  all  commodities,  must  be  produced  before 
it  is  distributed,  whoever  wantonly  or  unnecessarily  causes 
the  production  to  be  suspended  or  restricted  is  an  enemy  to 
God  and  man.  The  laborers  are,  of  course,  interested  in  the 
proper  working  of  the  mines  by  those  who  have  charge  of 
them." 

The  denunciation  by  Charles  F.  Adams,  of  the  law  firm  of 
Coudert  Brothers,  is  an  epitome  of  numberless  opinions, 
which  were  expressed  to-day  to  an  American  reporter.  I\Ir. 
Adams  said: 

"It  is  blasphemy.  The  idea  that  God  turned  over  the  coal 
mines  to  the  coal  operators!  ^^^ly,  it  is  ridiculous.  The 
only  reason  why  I  do  not  care  to  go  further  into  discussion 
of  the  subject  is  that  I  would  no  doubt  use  terms  which 
might  offend." 

The  following  expression  is  from  Bolton  Hall  of  East 
Hampton,  son  of  Rev.  Dr.  John  Hall : 

"My  opinion  is  that,  as  the  Scripture  says,  'The  earth  hath 


THE   WAY  OUT.  47 

He  given,  including  the  coal  mines  in  it,  to  all  the  children 
of  men,  not  only  to  some  of  them,  and  that  as  soon  as  the 
said  children  know  enough  to  take  for  themselves  the  value 
of  the  mines  and  of  the  rest  of  the  earth  in  taxes,  year 
by  year,  they  will  not  care  who  has  charge  of  it. 

' '  If  the  Lord  gave  landlords  charge  of  the  mines,  he  hardly 
instructed  them  to  charge  a  hundred  per  cent  profit  on  the 
coal,  and  to  put  the  proceeds  into  their  own  pockets."  <* 

Now,  who  is  right,  Mr.  Baer  or  his  critics? 

Mr.  Baer  says:  "The  rights  and  interests  of  the  laboring 
men  will  be  protected  and  cared  for,  by  the  Christian  men, 
to  whom  God  has  given  the  control  of  the  property  interests 
of  the  country." 

Two  propositions  are  stated  here : 

First:  "The  rights  and  interests  of  the  laboring  man  will 
be  protected  and  cared  for." 

Second:  They  will  be  protected  and  cared  for,  "by  the 
men  to  whom  God  has  given  the  control  of  the  property  in- 
terests of  the  country." 

By  these  two  it  is  implied,  first,  that  God  actually  gave  to 
ceftain  men  control  of  the  property  interests  of  the  country; 
and,  second,  in  doing  so,  especially  placed  the  rights  and  in- 
terests of  the  men  in  their  employ  under  their  protection  to 
be  "cared  for." 

Now,  if  there  had  been  any  law  in  Pennsylvania  that  pro- 
tected the  rights  and  interests  of  laboring  men,  Mr.  Baer 
never  would  have  written  what  he  did  about  their  protection 
— "by  the  men  who  control  the  property  interests  of  the 
country. ' ' 

He  said  it  because  there  was  no  law,  and  that  was  enough 
to  give  him  color  of  right,  if  not  the  right,  because  the  men 
were  working  for  him. 

-  But,  it  will  be  asked,  how  could  Mr.  Baer  .justify  himself 
for  the  ridiculous  assertion  that  God,  in  His  infinite  wisdom, 
gave  control  of  the  property  interests  of  the  country  to  cer- 
tain men?  If  he  had  said  God  gave  it  to  the  people,  the 
State,  it  would  not  have  been  so  bad. 

Perhaps  I  should  answer  that  I  do  not  know,  but,  by  what- 
ever process  of  reasoning  he  convinced  himself,  it  must  be 
conceded  that  it  was  an  honest  thought;  otherwise,  he  would 
not  have  so  emphatically  expressed  himself;  neither  the  lan- 
guage nor  the  occasion  for  using  it  .justifies  one  in  thinking 
he  meant  to  play  with  M^ords  or  invite  a  discussion,  but 
merely  meant  to  state  a  truth  as  he  saw  it,  and  with  confi- 
dence as  if  he  supposed  every  other  thinking  person  saw  it 
the  same  way. 

It  is  hardly  conceivable  that  so  smart  a  man  as  Mr.  Baer 
could  have  wished  to  unnecessarily  and  wantonly  antagonize 
the  world  on  this  proposition,  unless  he  thought  it  had  an 
important  bearing  on  the  matter  in  hand,  nor  that  he  would 


48  THE  WAY  OUT. 

have  stated  it  so  boldly  unless  convinced  of  its  truths,  or  be- 
lieved everybody  else  was  convinced  of  it. 

As  to  whj^  he  did  not  say  instead,  that,  God  gave  control 
of  the  property  interests  of  the  country  to  the  States,  it  was 
not  necessary.  It  is  apparent  to  all  that  God  did,  originally, 
give  it  to  the  State,  and  that  the  State,  in  the  exercise  of  itsi 
supposed  sovereign  right  to  do  so,  parted  with  its  title  and 
control  (in  the  coal  lands)  to  Mr.  Baer  and  his  associates, 
so  that,  when  he  says  God  gave  it  to  him  and  others,  his  con- 
clusion may  not,  after  all,  be  as  far  from  the  truth  as  his 
critics  imagined. 

God  did  give  him  control,  that  is,  He  gave  it  to  the  State 
and  the  State  gave  it  to  him,  which  is  the  same  thing,  for  the 
State  is  the  people  and  what  the  people  do  God  does  through 
them,  because  "the  voice  of  the  people  is  the  voice  of  God." 

It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  Mr.  Baer's  critics  are  wrong, 
and  that  no  one  can  justly  blame  him  for  his  position.  He 
is  exactly  Avhere  the  people,  including  his  able  critics,  have 
deliberately  placed  him  in  the  matter  of  the  control  of  the 
property  interests  of  the  country,  and  where  they,  themselves, 
actually  are,  though,  perhaps,  in  a  less  degree  by  the  same 
authority;  but,  they  (his  critics)  had  wandered  so  far  from 
their  first  high  and  perfect  conception  of  God's  intention 
that  the  whole  earth  should  always  be  controlled  by  the  peo- 
ple, that  they  did  not  realize  how  far  away  they  had  drifted 
from,  and  how  much  they  had  ignored  His  intention,  until 
awakened  and  startled  by  the  voice  of  Mr.  Baer  in  asserting 
his  own  divine  right,  as  if  God  had  deeded  straight  to  him. 
If  he  had  explained  more  at  length  the  round-about  way  that 
God  gave  it,  as  to  the  State  and  the  State  to  him,  it  would  not 
have  sounded  so  sacriligious.  However,  reflection  should 
have  convinced  them  that  he  is  logically  right;  but,  if,  in 
fact,  he  is  a  sinner,  some  day  they  must  all  answer  for  the 
same  offense. 

It  is  easy  to  see  why  Mr.  Baer  should  express  his  opinion 
as  to  who  will  look  out  for  the  rights  of  the  laboring  man,, 
since  the  law  does  not  do  it,  and  the  Labor  Unions  are  claim- 
ing the  right,  and,  in  trying  to  exercise  it,  naturally  inter- 
fering with  his  designs.  Bnt  it  is  not  so  easy  to  understand 
why  he  should  raise  a  question  of  his  Divine  control  of  prop- 
erty interests. 

However,  he  did  it,  and  in  such  an  off-hand,  matter  of  fact, 
blunt  and  business-like  way,  without  explanation,  that  he 
stirred  up  a  hornet's  nest,  mostly  among  other  capitalists,  who 
take  pains  to  call  his  assertion  "blasphemous"  and  "ridicu- 
lous." 

They  do  not  object  at  all  to  the  present  arrangement  as  to 
the  control  of  property  interests  or  as  to  wages.  In  fact, 
they  have  devoted  their  whole  lives  to  helping  make  the  ar- 
rangement w^hat  it  is  and  would  oppose  vigorously  any  ef- 
fort to  change  it,  but  they  think  he  is  perfectly  awful  to  call 


THE   WAY  OUT.  49 

people's  attention  to  it  in  sncli  bold,  rash  language,  it  might 
set  those  in  control  to  thinking,  and  if  they  once  get  to  think- 
ing there  is  no  telling  what  they  might  do  to  that  arrange- 
ment. 

Probably  Mr.  Baer  himself  never  thought  of  that,  but,  like 
all  business  men,  being  accustomed  to  expressing  himself  iu 
the  most  direct  and  terse  terms,  he  simply  meant  to  call  things 
by  their  right  names  and  not  waste  words. 

Should  the  common  people,  Avhom  God  has  so  far  neglect- 
ed to  give  control  of  any  of  the  property  interests  of  the 
country,  abuse  Mr.  Baer,  as  some  of  his  rich  friends  would 
seem  to  hvvo  done,  and  they  will  be  liitcly  to  do  it,  for  it  is  a 
matter  concerning  wliich  they  are  probably  at  present  con- 
spicuously and  blissfull}^  ignorant,  it  will  only  show  how 
stupid,  blind  and  unappreciative  they  can  sometimes  be. 
However,  they  will  get  riglit  sometime  and  they  ticn  will 
gratefully  acknowledge  his  brief  but  valuable  contribution  to 
the  science  of  controlling,  through  the  intervention  of  tlie  Al- 
mighty, the  property  interests  of  the  country. 

For  my  part,  I  feel  under  obligations  to  Mr.  Baer  and 
think  it  was  brave  in  him  (since  he  was  already  enjoying  all 
the  benefits  that  flow  from  the  control  of  certain  coal  prop- 
erty interests  of  the  country)  to  voluntarily,  and  without  any 
apparent  provocation,  proclaim  the  true  foundation  upon 
which  his  title  and  control  rests,  and  challenge  men  to  think. 


ANOTHER  CUT. 

"  Connelsville,  Penn.,  Dec.  15,  1903.— Reduction  of 
wages  averaging  17  per  cent  and  affecting  thirty  thousand 
men  at  the  Connelsville  coke  region  is  announced  to-day. 
The  H.  C.  Frick  Coke  Co.  takes  the  initiative  in  this,  the 
first  reduction  since  the  great  strike  of  the  early  nineties. 
Simultaneously  was  the  announcement  of  the  reduction  of 
wages  by  the  Union  Supply  Company,  owner  of  all  com- 
pany stores  and  plants  of  the  Frick  and  allied  companies, 
which  announced  a  general  cut  in  the  price  of  goods. ' ' 

Is  a  cut  a  contract '?  Certainly,  if  made  by  a  rich  cor- 
poration. Of  course,  there  is  never  but  one  party  to  a  cut 
contract,  so  it  is  really  a  one-party  contract,  but  it  is  a  eon- 
tract  just  the  same  in  Pennsylvania.  The  company  orders 
the  cut  and  the  men  are  forced  to  submit  to  it,  but  under  the 
law  this  force  is  not  force,  so  that  makes  it  a  contract.  If 
30,000  men  are  affected,  probably  90,000  people  are  affected, 
as  it  affects  their  families  also. 

But  it  is  a  contract,  and  if  the  men  were  to  ask  the  court 
to  award  them  reasonable  wages  it  would  tell  them  so,  even 
if  they  worked  because  they  had  to  or  starve. 


50  THE  WAY  OUT. 


MORE  PROOFS  OF  PLUTOCRATIC  POWER. 

NO  LAW   IN   NEW   ENGLAND.      SIXTY-FOUR   THOITSAND    OPERATORS 

OPPRESSED. 

Boston,  Nov.  30,  1903.— The  wages  of  32,000  cotton  textile 
operatives  were  reduced  an  average  of  ten  per  cent.  This 
brings  the  total  number  in  New  England,  whose  wages  have 
been  cut  this  fall,  to  about  64,000  and  other  reductions  next 
Monday  will  swell  the  number  to  about  75,000.  This  ^^'ill 
complete  the  general  reduction  in  the  Southern  New  Eng- 
land cotton  mills.  Reports  of  the  new  schedules  are  receiv- 
ed without  serious  protests." 

What  good  would  it  do  to  protest?  There  is  no  law  for 
the  operatives.  The  operators  can  do  as  they  please.  They 
want  their  usual  dividends  and  the^-  will  have  them.  They 
do  not  say  to  the  operatives:  "We  will  share  the  cut  with  you 
and  reduce  dividends  ten  per  cent."  No,  the  law  is  all  with 
them.  The  operatives  have  no  voice,  but  must  take  what  the 
operators  see  fit  to  allow  them.  Undoubtedly,  however,  the 
laws  and  courts  of  New  'England  unanimously,  unhesitating- 
ly and  unequivocally  hold  that  every  one  of  those  sixty-four 
to  seventy-five  thousand  workers  are  working  under  a  con- 
tract solemnly  entered  into,  which  should  be  enforced,  if 
called  in  question,  by  the  whole  power  of  the  State,  and,  if 
necessary,  the  nation. 

NO  LAW  IN  COLORADO. 

MORE    miners'    families   PERSECUTED. 

Trinidad,  Colo.,  Nov.  18.  1903. — ^National  Organizers  Ken- 
nedy, Warjohn  and  Campbell,  of  the  United  Mine  Workers, 
went  to  Hastings,  a  Victor  Fuel  Company  camp,  this  morning 
and  were  arrested  for  tresspassing  by  company  guards  and 
locked  up  for  several  hours.  They  were  released  in  time  to 
arrive  here  on  the  evening  train. 

Miners'  families  were  evicted  from  company  houses  at  Hast- 
ings and  Delagua  to-day  and  a  wagon  load  of  tents  were  sent 
from  union  headquarters  here,  but  guards  refused  to  allow 
the  tents  to  be  delivered,  although  it  is  bitter  cold.  Convey- 
ances were  sent  to  bring  the  evicted  families  to  Trinidad. 
Trouble  is  feared  at  Hastings  and  more  guards  have  been  add- 
ed.   The  miners  are  much  incensed  over  the  evictions." 

Even  the  army  of  the  United  States  is  at  the  disposal  of  the 
rich  to  fight  the  poor  for  demanding  what  the  law  should  give 
them — just  wages.    Listen  to  this : 

"Washington,  Nov.  19,  1903. — President  Roosevelt  has  re- 


THE  WAY   OUT.  51 

ceived  a  dispatch  from  Governor  Peabody  of  Colorado,  ask- 
ing: that  General  BaldM'in,  commanding  the  Department  of 
Colorado,  be  instructed  to  supply  such  troops  as  may  be  nec- 
essary to  preserve  order  in  the  Telluride  mining  district. 
After  a  consultation  between  the  President  and  the  Secretarj^ 
of  War,  Governor  Peabody  was  advised  that  it  did  not  appear 
that  the  resources  of  the  State  to  keep  the  peace  had  been 
exhausted,  and  therefore,  the  request  for  troops  was  denied." 

The  only  reason  the  United  States  troops  did  not  march 
against  the  miners  was,  the  Governor  did  not  make  it  appear 
that  the  militia  was  unable  to  do  all  the  mine  owners  wanted 
done. 

The  request  is  "to  preserve  order,"  yet  no  disorder  is  com- 
plained of,  and  there  was  npne. 

General  Bates,  who  was  sent  by  the  President  to  investi- 
gate, reported  (Nov.  29th)  :  "There  is  an  unsettled  condition 
at  the  coal  mines  in  the  southern  and  northern  districts,  which 
fnay  develop  into  such  disorder  as  to  require  troops.  At 
present,  I  understand,  no  violence  is  being  offered  in  the  coal 
districts. ' ' 

Now,  the  truth  is,  and  the  history  of  every  strike  proves  it, 
neither  soldiers  nor  hired  guards  were  ever  necessary  to  com- 
pel the  strikers  to  be  orderly,  that  is,  not  law-breakers  to  the 
extent  of  requiring  troops  to  restrain  them.  It  would  be 
senseless  to  say  or  expect  that  men,  in  large  bodies,  where 
interests  are  at  stake  and  passions  aroused,  would  not  have 
more  or  less  personal  encounters,  but  to  say  these  are  insurrec- 
tions demanding  the  presence  of  troops,  is  nothing  less  than 
exaggeration;  in  short  a  lie,  and  it  is  for  a  purpose,  a  selfish 
and  malicious  purpose ;  it  is  to  prejudice  the  public  against  the 
hired  men. 

When  a  circus  comes  to  town,  or  there  is  a  horse  race,  or 
the  Fourth  of  July  attracts  a  crowd,  there  are  usually  dis- 
turbances; but  is  the  militia  ordered  out?  No;  fights  are 
anticipated  and  a  few  extra  officers  are  sworn  in  to  cope  with 
disturbers,  but  there  is  as  much  need  of  troops  in  such 
cases  as  in  cases  of  strikes  were  there  no  ulterior  motives 
for  the  use  of  troops. 

One  motive  is  given  by  Mary  Simmons  Johnson  in  the  July 
(1903)  number  of  Wilshire's  Magazine:  "Workingmen  be- 
lieve that  through  the  instrumentality  of  their  powerful  em- 
ployers the  militia  is  ordered  out  in  strikes  primarily  to  in- 
timidate them."  And  I  would  add  that  another  motive  is  to 
prevent  union  men  from  going  among  non-union  men .  and 
persuading  them  to  join  the  union  and  not  "scab."  They 
fear  the  argument  of  the  strikers  far  more  than  their  violence, 
but  they  cry  violence  to  get  the.  soldiers,  and  they  get  them 
because  most  of  the  Sheriffs  and  the  Governors  of  most  of 
the  States  belong  to  the  capitalist  class  or  are  cowardly,  cring- 
ing flunkeys  of  capitalists,  always  ready  and  willing  to  prosti- 
tute the  brief  power  they  possess  to  serve  them,  even  at  the 
expense  of  manhood  and  of  justice  to  the  hired  men. 


52  THE  WAY  OUT. 

A  TOOL,  A  FOOL,  A  COWARD  AND  A  BRUTE. 

Denver,  Colo.,  Nov.  25,  1903. — General  Bell  called  his  sten- 
ographer into  his  office  this  afternoon  and  dictated  the  first 
statement  for  publication : 

"We  will  fight  it  out  in  Colorado  if  it  takes  every  able- 
bodied  man  in  the  State,  and  some  who  are  disabled  to  the 
end  that  law  and  order  be  maintained  and  socialism,  anarchy 
and  Moyerism  wiped  off  the  earth  until  there  is  not  a  grease 
spot  left  to  assassinate,  dynamite,  molest,  disturb,  or  in  any 
manner  interfere  v/ith  the  commercial  conditions  of  the  peace 
of  illustrious  Colorado." 

Denver,  Colo.,  Dec.  6. — Sherman  Bell,  Brigadier-General. 
Adjutant-General,  State  of  Colorado,  protege  of  Colonel 
Roosevelt,  has  issued  a  proclamation  defining  the  status  of 
martial  law  in  the  Cripple  Creek  mining  district  that  is  caus- 
ing uncontrollable  mirth.  Bell's  ofificiousness  has  been  the 
laughing  stock  of  the  State.  His  telegram  to  the  President 
offering  the  services  of  the  Colorado  National  Guard  to  hold 
down  a  canal  route  across  the  isthmus  recently  caused  the 
War  Department  and  all  official  Washington  to  smile  audibly. 
His  passion  to  advertise  himself  as  the  protege  of  Colonel 
Roosevelt,  who  calls  him  "Sherman,"  has  made  him  the  sub- 
ject of  scores  of  cartoons,  and  now  his  literary  genius  is  the 
subject  of  editorial  comment  in  the  papers  of  the  State. 

In  his  proclamation  headed,  "Instruction  for  the  Govern- 
ment of  Armies  and  Troops  in  the  Field,  Martial  Law,  Mili- 
tary Jurisdiction,  Military  Necessity,  Retaliaton, ' '  he  declares 
that: 

"Military  necessity  admits  of  all  direct  destruction  of  life 
and  limb  of  armed  enemies  and  other  persons  whose  destruc- 
tion is  incidentally  unavoidable.  Military  necessity  does 
not  admit  of  cruelty.  It  does  not  admit  of  the  use  of  poison 
in  any  way.  It  admits  of  deception,  but  disclaims  acts  of 
perfidy.       It  is  not  carried  on  bj^  arms  alone." 

He  defines  a  spy.  assassinations,  insurrection  and  treason, 
the  latter  punishable  by  death,  and  continues: 

"Every  law-abiding  citizen  in  the  county  of  Teller  and 
State  of  Colorado,  if  he,  she,  they  or  whom  are  engaged  in 
any  legitimate  business,  no  matter  what  their  vocation  in  life, 
regardless  of  their  union  or  non-union  affiliation  and  creed, 
shall  first  obey  the  laws  of  the  land,  those  of  Colorado  and 
the  United  States  of  America  included;  and  no  one  shall  be 
interfered  with  nor  in  any  way  molested  at  any  time  during 
the  night  or  day,  under  penalty  of  military  law,  rule,  disci- 
pline and  protection."  Preceding  the  official  signature  to 
this  remarkable  document  is  the  following: 

"I  trust  that  mining  and  all  business  in  the  Cripple  Creek 
district  shall  continue  to  improve  and  prosper  and  that  peace, 
prosperity  and  happiness  shall  continue  in  the  greatest  gold 
mining  camp  in  all  the  world  as  it  should  and  henceforth  for- 


THE   WAY   OTTT  53 

ever  be;  and  that  it  shall  continue  to  receive  the  best  com- 
pensation, both  in  hours  and  wages,  in  the  entire  country." 

MARTIAL  liAW  REIGNS  IN  CRIPPLE  CREEK. 

Cripple  Creek,  Colo.,  Dec.  6. — As  a  result  of  the  proclama- 
tion of  General  Bell  the  entire  Cripple  Creek  district  is  now 
under  martial  law. 

The  civil  authorities  have  been  dethroned  contrary  to  the 
statutes  of  the  State  of  Colorado,  which  provide  that  the 
military  shall  always  be  in  strict  subordination  to  the  civil 
power.  Disretyarding  the  advice  of  Attorney-General  Mil- 
ler, Governor  Peabody  two  days  ago  decided  to  place  the  dis- 
trict under  martial  law  and  ordered  that  the  officers  in  com- 
mand take  possession  of  the  offices  occupied  by  the  Sheriff, 
!Mayor  and  several  others. 

Under  the  proclamation  issued  last  nig-ht.  the  military  has 
called  for  the  surrender  of  all  firearms  in  possession  of  private 
citizens  by  December  8th,  failing:  to  deliver  which  the  Na- 
tional Guard  is  empowered  to  enter  the  private  houses  of  such 
persons  as  is  deemed  advisable  and  confiscate  all  such  arms. 

The  newspapers  and  correspondents  of  the  district  liave 
been  suppressed  to  a  g'reat  extent  and  all  news  sent  out  of 
the  district  will  be  perused  by  a  censor,  w^hose  name  has  not 
yet  been  divulged.  While  Sheriff  Robertson  of  Teller 
county  has  all  along  claimed  that  he  was  perfectly  able  to 
preserve  order,  he  was  overriden  by  the  Governor,  who  insist- 
ed upon  the  presence  of  the  militia. 

^'bUIjL    pen"    OUTRAGES. 

Shortly  afer  the  advent  of  the  militia  four  months  ago 
under  command  of  General  Sherman  Bell,  miners  known  to 
be  either  members  or  sympathizers  ^vith  the  miners'  union 
were  arrested  by  the  National  Guard  Avithout  cause  and  con- 
fined in  the  military  ''bull  pen." 

Writs  of  habeas  corpus  for  their  release  were  issued  by 
Judge  Seeds  of  the  District  Court,  but  for  some  time  General 
John  Chase,  in  charge  of  the  forces  in  the  field,  refused  to 
recognize  such  proceedings  and  openly  defied  the  order  of  the 
civil  court.  After  much  consultation  with  able  lawyers,  how- 
ever, Governor  Peabody  was  convinced  that  Chase's  acts  were 
in  violation  of  the  statutes  and,  accompanied  by  half  a  regi- 
ment of  soldiers,  he  marched  to  the  Teller  County  Court- 
house and  delivered  over  the  prisoners. 

It  was  here  that  a  disgraceful  scene  was  enacted,  the  sol- 
diers patrolling  the  court-room  and  shoving  bayonets  into  the 
faces  of  all  who  entered  therein.  Judge  Seeds,  rather  than 
stir  up  more  dissention,  quietly  submitted  to  this  proceedure 
on  the  part  of  the  military.  He,  however,  commented  upon 
it  in  bitter  tones  during  the  hearing  of  the  miners,  who  were 
released  for  lack  of  evidence. 


54  THE  WAY  OUT. 

STOPS   FREE    SPEECH, 

The  next  arbitrary  act  on  the  part  of  the  military  authori- 
ties was  to  suppress  the  Victor  "Daily  Record,"  a  newspaper 
friendly  to  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners,  and  which  had 
been  too  active  in  its  editorial  comment  to  suit  the  tastes  of 
General  Sherman  Bell  and  Governor  Peabody.  Under  the 
instructions  of  the  latter,  the  military  swooped  down  upon 
the  "Record"  office  at  midnight  some  time  ago  and  placed 
every  employee  under  aiTCst,  confining  them  in  the  bull  pen 
for  three  days,  when  they  were  released  upon  habeas  corpus 
writs.  The  arrest  of  these,  however,  did  not  suppress  the 
paper,  for  Mrs.  Emma  Langdon,  wife  of  one  of  the  lineotype 
operators,  upon  learning  of  what  had  happened,  came  to  the 
office  at  midnight,  locked  the  doors  to  prevent  the  militia 
from  entering,  and  single-handed  got  out  the  paper,  at  the 
head  of  which  appeared  the  following: 

"A  little  battered,  but  still  in  the  ring." 

Mrs.  Langdon,  after  the  paper  was  on  the  street,  proceeded 
to  the  military  camp  with  an  armful  of  the  publications  and 
distributed  them  among  the  soldiers. 

Early  yesterday  an  editorial  commenting  upon  the  act  of 
the  Governor  in  proclaiming  martial  law,  which  was  to  ap- 
pear in  the  "Record,"  was  suppressed  by  the  military  and 
the  paper  appeared  with  a  blank  space  where  the  editorial 
should  have  been.  The  blank  space  suggested  to  the  public 
that  an  editorial  had  been  suppressed. 

Sheriff  Robertson  expressed  great  surprise  when  relieved 
of  his  duties  by  the  Governor's  order  and  denied  the  latter 's 
statement  that  he  had  been  nesiigent  in  serving  warrants 
whenever  placed  in  his  hands.  The  Governor  gave  as  his  rea- 
son for  putting  the  district  under  martial  law  that  a  state  of 
insurrection  and  anarchy  exists  and  that  the  civil  authorities 
are  powless  and  unwilling  to  suppress  it.  The  Sheriff  de- 
nies that  he  is  unable  or  unwilling  to  perform  his  duties  and 
intimates  that  Peabody.  acting  as  a  tool  of  the  mine  owners, 
has  heaped  these  insults  upon  the  citizens  in  order  to  break 
the  strike  now  in  progress. 

RELEASED  BY  JUDGE. 

Judge  Seeds  last  week  released  on  $15,000  bonds  Charles 
G.  Kennison,  G.  F.  Davis  and  Sherman  Parker,  who  are 
charged  with  having  placed  in  the  Vindicator's  shaft  as  in- 
fernal machine  by  which  Charles  ^NTcCormick  and  Emil  Beck 
lost  their  lives  two  weeks  ago.  These  men  were  likewise  re- 
leased on  habeas  corpus  writs,  much  to  the  dissatisfaction  of 
th  military  authorities.  Judge  Seeds,  however,  contends 
that  in  view  of  the  insufficient  evidence  the  bail  is  plenty 
large  enough  and  that  the  accused  are  entitled  to  their  free- 
dom. 

Governor  Peabody  was  smarting  \vith  anger  to-day  when 
he  read  the  proclamation  issued  and  read  by  General  Bell  in 


THE  AVAY   OUT.  55 

Victor  last  night  placing  the  CrippleCreek  district  under  full 
martial  law. 

"I  am  surprised  at  the  idiotic  action  of  General  Bell  in 
ordering  the  surrender  of  all  weapons,"  said  the  Governor. 

"The  district  is  under  a  limited  martial  law,  but  we  do 
not  intend  to  be  so  radical  as  Bell's  proclamation  would  in- 
fer. Martial  law  has  been  declared  simply  to  suppress  the 
crimes  which  have  been  rampant." 

BELL    IS    RECALLED. 

The  Governor  stated  that  he  had  ordered  Bell  back  to  the 
Capitol,  where  he  belongs,  and  not  to  further  interfere  with 
Colonel  Verdeckburg,  the  executive  officer  of  the  district. 

The  feeling  against  Governor  Peabody  for  his  action  in 
declaring  Cripple  Creek  and  the  district  under  martial  law 
has  reached  an  intense  stage,  and  on  all  sides  the  chief  exec- 
utive is  being  denounced  for  what  the  majority  of  Cripple 
Creek  residents  term  an  unpardonable  action. 

Sheriff  Robertson  denied  to-night  that  he  had  in  any  way 
been  partial  to  the  miners'  union  by  refusing  to  serve  war- 
rants placed  in  his  hands,  and  intimated  that  the  Governor 
is  a  willing  tool  of  the  mine  owners,  who  have  all  along  work- 
ed to  have  martial  law  declared. 

Judge  Seeds  also  stated  that  the  declaration  of  Governor 
Peabody  to  the  effect  that  convictions  of  guilty  persons  can- 
not be  secured  under  civil  rule  is  a  falsehood. 

SUSPENDS   HABEAS    CORPUS. 

Denver,  December  4. — Governor  Peabody  bases  his  decision 
to  declare  limited  martial  law  on  the  decision  of  the  Idaho 
Supreme  Court,  which  declared  that  the  Act  of  the  Governor 
of  Idaho  in  putting  into  force  to  a  limited  extent  martiali 
law  in  the  Couer  d'Alene  was  in  thorough  harmony  with  the 
Constitution  of  that  State.  The  constitutional  provision  re- 
lating to  suspension  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  in  this  State 
is  similar  to  that  of  the  Idaho  Constitution. 

Colonel  Edward  Verdeckberg,  commander  of  the  military 
force  in  Cripple  Creek,  was  with  the  Governor  when  he  dic- 
tated the  proclamation.  He  left  for  Cripple  Creek  this  aft- 
ernoon with  a  copy  of  the  proclamation. 

Wholesale  arrests  of  strikers  suspected  of  implication  in 
the  Vindicator  explosion  and  other  cases  of  violence  will  be 
made  to-morrow.  The  "bull  pen"  will  be  enlarged  so  as 
to  accommodate  several  hundred  prisoners." 

Give  us  more  Bells,  Avhose  enthusiasm  in  serving  capital- 
ists exceeds  their  discretion,  and  the  devilish  designs  of  the 
rich  to  force  the  poor  into  submission  will  sooner  awaken  them 
to  action.  Bells  are  a  blessing  in  disguise.  Laboring  men 
do  not  see  until  knocked  down  a  few  times  that  somebody*^ 
"wants  to  rob  and  enslave  them. 

I  wonder  if  this  will  make  them  think? 

Telluride,  Colo.,  Nov.  30,  1903.— Justice  of  the  Peace  War- 


56  THE  WAY  OUT. 

rington  Robinson  to-day  issued  a  lot  of  John  Doe  warrants 
to  Sheriff  Rulan,  to  be  used  as  he  sees  fit. 

The  sheriff  says  that  Grovernor  Peabody  ordered  the  militia 
to  Telluride  on  condition  that  "agitators,  idlers  and  trouble- 
breeders  be  driven  from  the  camp"  and  that  he  will  use  the 
blanket  warrants  to  accomplish  this  result. 

The  union  leaders  regard  this  action  as  an  invasion  of  their 
rights. 

Thirty-eight  men  were  arrested  on  warrants  and  sixteen  of 
them  fined  $15  each  for  vagrancy.  Sentence  was  suspended 
until  Wednesday,  when  the  men  will  be  placed  in  jail  unless 
they  are  at  work. ' ' 

Don't  you  like  it?  You  struck  to  get  what  the  law  should 
give  you  for  the  asking,  and  because  you  did,  the  Governor 
calls  you  "agitators,  idlers  and  turouble-breeders  to  be  driven 
from  camp,"  and  if  you  don't  go  you  are  to  be  arrested  as 
vargrants.  The  militia  are  sent  "on  condition  that  you  are 
made  to  get  out.  Does  this  mean  that  you  shall  hush  and 
work  on  the  employers'  terms,  or  be  .iailed  as  vagrants  or  get? 

Telluride,  Colo.,'  Nov.  30,  1903.— Work  is  gradually  being 
resumed  on  all  the  mining  properties  in  this  district.  Prepa- 
rations are  being  made  to  import  non-union  men  this  week." 

WHERE  DO  THEY  CONNIE  FROM?  The  dispatch  says, 
"non-union  men."  If  they  are  non-union  men  it  is  not  from 
choice.  But  may  they  not  be  hungry  union  men  from  Shamo- 
kin  or  Chicago  ?  You  may  be  sure  of  one  thing,  most  of  them 
would  refuse  to  take  the  place  of  the  strikers  if  necessity  did 
not  compel  them  to  do  it. 


THE  WAY   OUT.  57 


WHAT  IS  YOUR  OPINION? 

Do  you  think  the  four  or  five  thousand  striking-  miners  re- 
ferred to  in  the  following^  dispatch  were  honest  or  dishonest? 
Did  they  stand  there  in  the  cold  with  serions  and  anxious 
faces,  listening  to  their  great  leader  because  they  were  evil- 
minded  and  bent  on  doing:  somebody  a  wrong,  or  was  it  be- 
cause they  thought  somebody  was  wronging  them  and  refused 
to  stop  it?  I  have  no  doubt  you  will  say  they  were  honest 
although  some  of  you  may  say  they  were  mistaken.  But  sup- 
pose they  wei-e  mistaken  ?  So  long  as  they  thought  they  were 
right,  should  they  not  have  the  right  to  bring  those  into  court 
whom  they  accused  of  wronging  them  and  have  the  matter 
fully  invesigated  and  determined?  The  law  gives  you  that 
right  if  somebody  wrongs  you,  but  it  will  have  absolutely 
nothing  to  do  with  the  wrongs  these  men  complain  of,  and 
that  is  why  so  many  of  them  are  there  shivering  in  the  cold, 
consulting  what  to  do,  and  eagerly  listening  to  the  advice  of 
John  Mitchell. 

The  picture  of  this  little  army  of  poorly  paid,  poorly  fed 
and  poorly  clothed  miners,  standing  there  in  the  open  air  in 
December,  half  frozen,  listening  to  a  speech  on  their  rights 
and  duties  as  men,  reminds  one  of  AVashington 's  little  army 
of  ragged  and  hungry  patriots  bravely  enduring  the  rigors 
of  winter  at  Valley  Forge  for  the  sake  of  freedom. 

Trinidad,  Colo.,  Dec.  3d,  1903.— With  the  temperature 
at  freezing  point.  President  ]\Iitchell  addressed  a  crowd 
estimated  at  between  4000  and  5000  in  the  open  air  this  after- 
noon. The  crowd  shivered  from  cold  but  listened  attentively 
throughout,  frequently  interrupting  the  speaker  with  cheers. 
Mr.  Mitchell  said  in  part:  "I  cannot  tell  when  or  how  the 
strike  will  end,  whether  in  a  day  or  a  month,  or  a  year,  that 
depends  on  yourselves.  You  cannot  hope  to  win  without  mak- 
ing sacrifices.  I  have  been  in  many  strikes  and  have  seen 
starvation  and  eviction.  Strikes  are  serious  things,  not  pleas- 
ure, and  men  must  strike  bravely.  An  organization  that  has 
met  victory  in  great  Pennsylvania.  Strikes  cannot  be  driven 
from  Colorado.  Our  organization  is  380,000  strong,  too 
strong  to  be  beaten  in  this  State.  If  you  are  of  the  ?ame 
mind  as  I  am  you  will  mine  no  more  coal  until  you  receive 
fair  compensation  under  proper  conditions.  You  should  all 
obey  the  law,  and  this  a  good  man  will  do.  You  must  fight 
peaceably. ' ' 

Do  you  imagine  these  eight  hundred  women  are  pleading 
with  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  protect  bad  men, 
anarchists  and  insurrectionists? 

Cripple  Creek,  Colo.,  Dec.  5,  1903. — In  consequence  of 
Governor  Peabody's  order  placing  this  district  under  martial 
law  a  committee  of  the  women's  auxiliary  of  the  labor  unions 


58  THE  WAY  OUT. 

of  this  city,  numbering  eight  hundred  members,  has  tele- 
graphed President  Roosevelt  ' '  appealing  to  him  for  protection 
against  unjust  ruling  of  the  governor  of  the  State." 

Who  is  it  that  is  carrying  on  with  a  high  hand  ? 

"The  declaration  of  martial  law  has  paralyzed  ^11  busi- 
ness in  this  city.  Heavily  armed  pickets  of  the  National 
Guard  are  stationed  at  all  street  comers  and  many  residents 
do  not  venture  on  the  streets.  Provost  INlarshal  McClelland  is 
occupying  the  Mayor's  office  and  has  caused  the  arrest  of 
several  persons.  The  Western  Federation  of  IMiners  is  pre- 
paring to  make  a  joint  fight  against  martial  law  and  for  the 
release  of  their  members  now  confined  in  various  jails  and 
bull-pens. 

Following  the  supression  of  the  Victor  Record  Provost 
Marshal  McClelland  to-day  threatened  to  cut  off  Cripple 
Creek  from  the  outside  world  by  locking  up  the  correspon- 
dents of  Denver  papers  and  censor  all  matters  sent  Denver 
newspapers." 

Is  this  the  language  of  men  without  a  grievance? 

"Denver,  Dec.  5,  1903.— The  Executive  Board  of  the  West- 
ern Federation  of  i\Tiners  to-day  issued  an  address  pledging 
the  moral  and  financial  support  of  the  organization  to  its  mem- 
bers in  Colorado,  Arizona,  California,  Nevada  and  every 
other  locality  where  they  are  fighting  a  battle  against  cor- 
porate despotism  and  for  the  uplifting  of  humanity  to  a 
higher  plane  of  civilization." 

To  the  coal  miners  who  have  joined  in  the  fight  for  eight- 
hour  day,  the  address  says:  "We  pledge  the  deathless  fra- 
ternity of  our  organization." 

Concerning  Governor  Peabody's  action  in  placing  Cripple 
Creek  under  martial  law  the  address  says : 

"The  Executive  Board  can  find  no  words  satisfactorily 
strong  to  denounce  this  act  in  the  most  brutal  drama  of  coer- 
cion that  makes  a  Russian  Siberia  a  paradise  when  compared 
to  Colorado. 

"We  know  no  surrender,  and  justice  will  arise  from  the 
staggering  blow  administered  by  a  soulless  executive  and  the 
future  will  record  the  political  revenge  of  an  oppressed  peo- 
ple, who  are  awakening  from  their  lethargy  to  smite  unbridled 
tyranny  a  blow  that  will  end  in  its  eternal  death. ' ' 

Do  not  be  too  hard  on  poor  Peabody,  boys ;  he  is  a  todyist  of 
course,  but  he  cannot  help  it.  He  is  the  legitimate  offspring 
of  conditions  that  have  existed  for  a  long  time.  Let  us  wipe 
out  the  conditions  that  produced  him  and  the  breed  will  soon 
become  extinct. 


THE  WAY   OUT.  59 


MINERS'     ORGANIZATION     TREATED     WITH     CON- 
TEMPT  BY   MINE    OWNERS. 

"Denver,  Dee.  3,  1903.— Delosa  Chappell,  President  of  the 
Victor  Fnel  Company  and  F.  J.  Hearne,  of  the  Colorado  Fuel 
Iron  Co.,  held  a  conference  to-day  to  agree  upon  a  line  of 
action  to  l^e  pursued  in  respect  to  any  proposition  that  may 
be  received  from  the  United  Mine  Workers  lookino;  to  a  settle- 
ment of  the  strike  in  Southern  Colorado.  It  was  decided  to 
reject  any  proposition  that  may  come  from  the  United  Mine 
Workers. ' ' 

"Our  course  is  fully  determined  upon,"  siid  ^Ir.  Chappell. 
"We  have  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  Mr.  Mitchell  and  his 
collegue. ' ' 

Never  mind,  miners,  "Every  dog  has  his  day"  and  "it 
is  a  long  lane  that  has  no  turn."  Stick  together  and  vote 
together  and  you  will  by  and  by  officer  the  government  of  the 
State  and  Nation  and  these  contemptious  nabobs  will  fawn 
around  you  for  favors  like  whipped  puppies. 


MORE  HIGHHANDED  INJUSTICE  IN  COLORADO. 

Denver,  Colo.,  Dec.  2,  1903. — A  special  to  the  Ncavs  from 
Telluride,  says  eight  of  the  seventeen  strikers  who  were  ar- 
rested on  the  charge  of  vagrancy  Monday,  and  fined  and  given 
until  this  afternoon  to  leave  town  or  return  to  work,  were  re- 
arrested to-day  and  lodged  in  .jail.  The  others  were  not  found 
by  the  deputy  sheriff  although  it  is  not  believed  any  of  them 
have  left  town  and  not  one  of  them  has  returned  to  work  nor 
paid  his  fine.  It  is  understood  that  the  men  will  be  put  to 
work  on  the  streets  under  guard.  Twelve  non-union  m.en  ar- 
rived in  Telluride  to-night. 

Telluride,  Colo.,  Dec.  3,  1903.— Eight  of  the  seventeen 
striking  miners  Avho  were  arrested  on  the  charge  of  vagrancy 
were  put  to  work  on  the  streets  to-day  under  guard.  Some  of 
them  had  monej'-  but  they  preferred  to  work  out  their  fines 
rather  than  pay  them. 

Mr.  Mitchell  and  other  mine  workers  officials  were  served 
to-day  with  papers  in  a  damage  suit  for  $S5,000  filed  by  the 
Victor  Fuel  Co.  President  Mitchell  was  to-day  served  with  a 
summons  to  court  in  the  suit  of  the  Victor  Fuel  Co.,  for  an 
injunction  to  restrain  the  United  Mine  Workers'  officials  from 
interfering  in  any  manner  with  the  operation  of  the  com- 
pany's mines." 

Ordered  to  leave  town  or  return  to  work ! 

Return  where  to  work?  To  the  Victor  Fuel  Co.  of  course. 
Oh  No!    The  troops  are  not  for  the  purpose  of  intimidating 


60  THE  WAY  OUT. 

anybody.  They  are  "to  keep  order."  These  men  have  .just 
quit  working  for  that  company  for  a  eause  which  they  deemed 
sufficient,  and  the  chances  are  that  they  have  money  enough 
to  pay  their  way.     How  then,  can  they  be  vagrants? 

If  a  man  stops  work  because  he  wants  to  and  has  money  to 
pay  his  way,  does  that  make  him  a  vagrant  to  be  ordered  out 
of  town? 

If  that  rule  was  applied  to  all.  where  would  many  of  the 
officials  and  stockholders  of  the  Victor  Fuel  Company  fetch 
up? 


THE   CONSPIRACY  FINALLY  EXPOSED.     GENERAL 
BELL  GIVES  REASONS  FOR  RESIGNING. 

Denver,  Colo.,  May  22,  1904.— ''The  State  militia  was  de- 
graded to  the  uses  of  corporations  which  connived  at  the 
breaking  of  the  law.  The  very  men  whom  we  used  troops  to 
protect,  imported  all-around  bad  men,  the  very  men  I  ran  out 
of  their  camps,  to  break  the  law  in  Denver  and  carried  the 
election  in  their  interests.  "With  this  statement  Adjutant  Gen- 
eral Bell,  heretofore  the  right-hand  man  of  Governor  Peobody 
in  his  military  methods  of  handling  recent  labor  troubles,  an- 
nounced to-day  his  purpose  to  resign  his  position  and  have 
nothing  more  to  do  with  what  he  considers  an  improper  use 
of  the  State  forces. 

"I  shall  resign  the  office  of  Adjutant  General  probably  to- 
morrow and  by  the  first  of  July  there  will  be  another  man  in 
my  place,"  he  continued,  "  I  do  not  approve  of  using  the 
militia  of  the  State  to  help  any  political  movement.  I  am  ac- 
cused of  using,  or  attempting  to  use  the  militia  in  the  late 
campaign.  This  is  false,  but  the  corporations  uspd  the  militia 
for  their  purposes,  and  inst/^ad  of  the  militia  being  used  to 
protect  the  people  and  uphold  the  law,  that  force  was  actual- 
ly used  to  encourage  trouble." 

There  you  have  it,  from  the  lips  of  the  hiehest  officer  in 
command  of  the  troops  that  they  were  used  by  corporations 
under  the  pretense  of  protecting  the  people  and  upholding 
the  law,  when  actually,  they  were  used  to  encourage  trouble." 


THE    WAY    OUT.  Gl 


NO  LAW  IX  UTAH 


To  protect  the  rights  and  interests  of  laboring  men,  but 
])lenty  of  it  and  plenty  of  officials  and  militia  to  help  cor- 
porations defeat  their  rights. 

"Salt  Lake,  Nov.  28,  1903.— Vice-President  Kramer,  of  the 
Utah  Fuel  Co.,  has  replied  to  Gov.  Well's  telegram  of  yester- 
day asking  if  he  (Kramer)  would  meet  a  committee  from  the 
Miners'  Union  and  endeavor  to  settle  the  coal  ininers'  strike 
in  Carbon  county. 

In  his  reply  Mr.  Kramer  positively  declined  to  meet  repre- 
sentatives of  the  United  Mine  AA^orkers  of  America  on  the 
ground  that  the  present  condition  of  aifairs  was  brought  about 
"for  the  sole  purpose  of  aiding  their  organizers  in  installing 
their  union  in  its  supremacy  to  the  law,  order,  dignity  and 
peace  of  the  State  and  the  absolute  exclusion  from  work  of 
all  employes  of  the  Utah  Fuel  Co.  who  would  not  join  their 
Union. ' ' 

Why  should  not  Mr.  Kramer  decline  to  meet  representatives 
of  the  United  Mine  Workers  when  he  knows,  with  the  aid  of 
the  State  militia  he  is  independent  of  them  and  can  down 
them"?  The  militia  are  there  to  do  his  bidding  and  help  him 
do  it. 

Suppose  the  weight  of  the  militia's  influence  was  trans- 
ferred to  the  miners'  side  of  the  scale,  what  then? 

But  think  of  his  impudence  and  assurance  in  accusing  the 
laboring  men  of  striking  "for  the  sole  purpose  of  installing 
their  union  in  its  supremacy  to  the  law,"  which  is  not  true, 
"and  the  absolute  exclusion  from  work  of  all  who  would 
not  join  the  union?" 

What  was  the  Utah  Fuel  Co.  "installed"  for?  Was  it  not 
to  corral  and  obtain  a  monopoly  on  all  the  coal  in  the  State 
to  the  "absolute  exclusion"  of  everybody  else?  Was  it  not 
for  the  "sole"  purpose  of  forcing  everybody  who  used  coal 
to  pay  monoply  prices  for  it? 

Is  there  nothing  then,  in  the  objects  and  purposes  of  his 
company  that  is  equivalent  to  "installing  it  in  its  supremacy 
to  the  law,  order,  dignity  and  peace  of  the  State?"  Per- 
haps not,  but  it  will  disturb  the  peace  of  mind  of  tens  of 
thousands  of  people  to  dig  up  the  price  of  a  ton  or  two  of  coal 
just  the  same,  and  it  would  also  disturb  the  dignity  and  good 
order  of  every  miner 's  family  to  learn  how  to  live  on  the  very 
lowest  living  wages,  if  he  had  to  work  for  the  company  and 
the  union  was  not  strong  enough  to  protect  his  right  to  just 
wages. 


62  THE  WAY  OUT. 


PERSECUTE   MINERS'   FAMILIES. 

"Scofield,  Utah,  Nov.  30,  1903.— Armed  guards  to-day  be- 
gan the  work  of  serving  notices  of  eviction  on  the  striking 
miners  occupying  houses  on  leased  company's  grounds.  No 
disturbances  are  reported." 

You  see  the  company  was  cunning  enough  to  get  the  poor 
miners  to  live  on  land  it  owned,  and  often  to  build  their  own 
houses  on  land  leased  of  the  company,  so  in  case  of  a  strike, 
it  could  hold  the  threat  and  fear  of  eviction  before  them  as  a 
club,  hoping  thereby  to  prevent  a  strike  or  force  them  back 
to  work  if  they  should  strike. 

You  can  imagine  how  intensely  loyal  the  men  must  be  to 
the  union  and  its  principles  when  they  will  suffer  being  put 
out  of  doors  in  winter  in  that  high  cold  climate,  rather  than 
further  submit  to  the  company's  injustice. 

Men  made  of  that  kind  of  stuff  will  do  to  tie  to,  and  some 
day  they  will  VOTE  together,  and  then  their  rich  oppressors 
will  have  to  get  off  the  bridge  and  let  them  pilot  the  ship. 


NO  UNION  MAN  NEED  APPLY. 

Salt  Lake,  Dec.  2,  1903. — A  Tribune  special  from  Scofield, 
Utah  quotes  William  Price,  the  United  Mine  AYorkers'  rep- 
resentative there,  as  stating  the  strike  would  be  declared  off 
and  the  men  at  once  returned  to  work  provided  the  Utah  Fuel 
Company  would  guarantee  that  no  discriminations  were  made 
against  the  employment  of  union  men  in  the  future.  "If  we 
are  not  given  that  guarantee,"  Mr.  Price  is  quoted  as  saying, 
"the  fight  will  be  continued  as  long  as  the  national  organiza- 
tion exists." 

When  President  Kramer  of  the  Utah  Fuel  Co.  was  shown 
the  Price  interview  to-night  he  said:  "To  work  union  and 
non-union  men  in  the  mine  is  impossible,  men  who  refuse  to 
join  the  union  would  be  intimidated  and  there  would  ])e  too 
much  danger  of  accidents.  We  are  willing  to  take  back  in 
our  employ  all  strikers  who  have  not  been  agitators,  and  who 
have  not  destroyed  property,  provided  they  will  give  up  their 
union  cards.    That  is  as  far  as  we  can  go. ' ' 

Salt  Lake,  Dec.  14,  1903. — "Any  miner  who  wants  to  work 
for  the  Utah  Fuel  Co.  must  choose  between  the  Company  and 
the  Miners'  Union,"  said  Vice-President  Kramer,  of  the  Utah 
Fuel  Co.,  to-day.  "We  will  not  take  back  a  single  one  of  the 
strikers  so  long  as  they  are  unwilling  to  surrender  their  union 
cards. ' ' 

Of  course,  the  idea  of  Mr.  Kramer  and  his  company  is,  to 
break  up  the  Union.     He  also  fears  the  persuasive  and  un- 


THE  WAY   OUT.  63 

answerable  arguments  union  men  will  pour  into  the  ears  of 
non-union  men  if  allowed  to  work  side  by  side  and  he  does 
not  propose  to  take  any  chances.  He  wants  men  to  be  kept 
ignorant  of  their  rights  and  power.     They  make  better  slaves. 


A  FOREST  THE  ONLY  COUNCIL  CHAMBER  LABOR 
CAN  AFFORD. 

''Scofield,  Utah,  Dee.  2,  1903. — A  mass  meeting  of  striking 
coal  miners  was  held  this  afternoon  in  the  WOODS  two  miles 
below  Scofield." 

When  they  have  learned  to  vote  together,  they  will  adjourn 
to  meet  in  the  legislative  halls  of  the  capital  building  at  Salt 
Lake.  Until  then,  it  is  proper  they  meet  in  the  woods.  They 
may  depend  upon  it  that,  as  long  as  they  keep  on  dividing 
their  votes  between  the  capitalist  parties  they  will  get  it  in  the 
stomach. 


THE     GOVERNOR     ''LEGS     IT"     FOR     THE     RICH 
AGAINST  THE  MEN. 

' '  Salt  Lake,  Dec.  2,  1903. — Another  conference  Avas  held  to- 
day between  Gov.  Wells  and  representatives  of  the  striking 
coal  miners  in  an  endeavor  to  reach  a  basis  of  agreement  for 
a  settlement  of  the  strike,  but  after  several  hours'  discussion 
the  conference  broke  up,  nothing  having  been  accomplished. 
Charles  Demolli,  State  Organizer  for  the  Miners'  Union,  was 
present. ' ' 

"What  do  you  intend  to  do?"  asked  the  governor  of  Mr. 
Demolli.  "Do  you  think  you  will  be  able  to  unionize  the 
camps  and  keep  the  miners  away  from  work  until  that  is 
done?" 

"Yes,  sir,  I  think  so,"  answered  Demolli. 

Attorneys  Edler  and  Fozler,  representing  the  miners,  told 
the  governor  that  if  the  State  troops  were  withdrawn  all  the 
camps  would  be  completely  unionized  within  three  weeks. 
They  asserted  that  martial  law  would  be  preferable  to  present 
conditions,  claiming  that  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  invariably 
ruled  in  favor  of  the  Fuel  Company. 

During  the  conference  Gov.  Wells  asked  Demolli  to  leave 
the  mining  camps  until  spring  at  least.  Demolli  said  he  could 
not  do  this  until  matters  were  settled  or  he  was  ordered  away 
by  President  Mitchell. 

Gov.  Wells  told  the  labor  representatives  that  he  was  satis- 
fied the  strike  would  fail,  and  continued: 

"I  honestly  believe  gentlemen,  that  if  there  is  much  furth- 


64  THE  WAY  OUT. 

er  effort  to  secure  recognition  of  the  union  and  to  prolong 
the  strike  the  sentiment  in  the  State  is  such  that  it  will  be  only 
a  question  of  time  before  men  from  all  over  the  State  will 
shoulder  their  ritles  and  go  down  there  and  run  the  agitators 
out  of  the  State.  I  think  you  are  wrong  in  pursuing  this  mat- 
ter further  at  the  present  time. ' ' 

The  governor  warned  them  against  any  lawlessness  and 
turning  to  DemoUi  with  a  smile  said : 

"We  will  give  you  a  free  passport  out  of  the  State  and  I 
am  sure  the  people  would  like  to  see  you  back  to  Colorado." 

Demolli,  however,  left  for  the  scene  of  the  strike  in  Carbon 
county. ' ' 

Hurrah  for  Demolli  and  his  attorneys !  Take  away  the 
troops  and  "all  the  camps  would  be  completely  unionized 
within  three  weeks."  Is  it  not  clear  that  the  mission  of  the 
troops  was  to  prevent  free  discussion  and  not  to  prevent  vio- 
lence? 

Biit  what  shall  we  think  of  Gov.  Wells  when  he  says  "if 
there  is  much  further  effort  to  secure  recognition  of  the  union 
and  prolong  the  strike,  men  from  all  over  the  State  will 
shoulder  their  rifles  and  go  down  there  and  run  the  agitators 
out  of  the  State. ' ' 

In  one  breath  he  intimates  that  he  will  approve  of  lawless- 
ness if  committed  by  one  class,  and  in  the  next,  speaking  of 
another  class,  warned  them  against  it  or  thev  might  be  "run 
out  of  the  State. " 

The  great  intellect  of  this  distinguished  embryo  statesman 
seems  to  have  discovered  a  new  judicial  principle  which  Coke, 
Littleton,  Blackstone,  Kent  and  other  great  jurists  had  en- 
tirely overlooked.  He  is  able  to  see  a  distinction  that  ought 
to  be  recognized  which  depends,  not  on  the  degree  of  lawless- 
ness, but  on  who  is  guilty  of  it.  An  eft'ort  to  secure  recogni- 
tion of  a  union,  if  it  prolongs  a  strike,  is  lawless.  But  it  is 
not  lawless  if  men  shoulder  their  rifles  and  go  and  run  tliose 
trying  to  do  so  out  of  the  State. 

The  truth  was,  Gov.  Wells  ordered  the  militia  to  Scofield 
because  the  Pleasant  Valley  Coal  Co.  wanted  him  to.  Accord- 
ing to  Col.  J.  A.  Greenwald  of  the  National  Guard,  there  was 
no  need  of  troops  at  Scofield.  He  reported  "I  have  seen  no 
acts  of  violence  and  no  intimidation  on  the  part  of  the  strik- 
ers. It  is  a  fact  that  at  present  there  is  no  lawlessness.  Yes- 
terday Avas  the  day  for  the  trouble  to  come  as  the  operators 
believed,  but  it  was  as  peaceable  as  you  please.  I  look  for 
the  guards  to  be  there  sometime,  as  the  evictions  will  not  be 
accomplished  before  the  last  of  January  and  it  will  be  neces- 
sary to  have  the  soldiers  there  in  case  of  trouble." 

According  to  this  officer,  the  miners  are  resorting  to  neither 
violence  nor  intimidation,  yet  the  State  is  put  to  the  expense 
according  to  Attorney-General  Breeden,  of  $1000  a  day  to 
perform  the  ordinary  duties  of  a  constable,  evicting  tenants 
upon  a  justice's  court  process.  Attorney-General  Breeden 
went  doAvn  to  investigate  the  strike  conditions  and  from  his 


THE  WAY   OUT.  65 

report  to  the  Tribune  of  Dec.  4,  one  would  take  him  to  be 
a  patriot  who  rides  on  a  railroad  pass  and  then  collects  mile- 
age of  the  State.  This  is  what  he  says :  "While  there  had  been 
few  overt  acts,  some  of  the  strikers  were  inclined  to  be  surly 
and  to  resent  the  interference  of  the  civil  authorities.  They 
appear  to  like  the  soldiers,  but  have  it  in  for  the  deputies, 
who  they  claim  stopped  them  on  the  highways  and  were  in- 
solent in  many  ways.  To  me  (this  is  just  what  the  company 
would  say)  the  strike  looks  like  an  exhibition  of  downright 
ungratefulness  on  the  part  of  the  labor  organization  which  is 
responsible  for  it.  It  looks  as  though  the  State  in  giving  the 
laboring  people  an  eight-hour  day  and  a  board  of  arbitration 
to  adjust  their  differences  deserved  better  things  than  to  be 
caused  this  unnecessary,  almost  criminal  expense  of  almost 
$1000  a  day  in  behalf  of  men  who  were  already  receiving  good 
wages,  and  very  few  of  whom  are  tax-payers  or  speak  the 
English  language. ' ' 

The  sum  of  what  this  official  flunkey  says  is,  first,  there 
have  been  few  overt  acts,  in  other  words  they  did  not  amount 
to  anything.  Second,  the  hired  men  were  inclined  to  be 
surly,  because  "stopped  and  insulted";  third,  they  were  un- 
grateful to  the  State  for  an  eight-hour  day  and  a  board  of 
arbritation  ' '  given  them  ; ' '  fourth,  troops  were  called  out 
"in  behalf  of  men;"  fifth,  they  were  receiving  good  wages; 
sixth,  they  don't  pay  taxes;  seventh,  they  cannot  speak 
English. 

Until  this  legal  light  "investigated,"  people  were  led  to 
believe  the  strikers  were  raising  merry  hell  down  there,  and 
troops  were  necessary  to  keep  them  half-way  decent ;  but  this 
official  says  the  men  were  inclined  to  be  surly  because  insulted 
by  guards,  yet  few  overt  acts  were  committed  (that  was  aw- 
ful, for  the  men  to  be  surly  when  insulted. )  Another  ' '  exhibi- 
tion" he  noticed  was  their  "ungratefulness"  for  an  eight- 
hour  day  which  the  law  had  given  them  and  for  a  board  of 
arbritation.  (He  forgot  to  mention  that  the  company  itself 
refused  to  recognize  the  eight-hour  law  or  to  arbitrate.) 

It  seems  a  pretty  tough  charge  to  make  against  the  men 
that  very  few  of  them  pay  taxes  or  speak  English,  but  it  is 
mild  compared  with  the  charge  that  the  soldiers  were  sent 
there  in  "their  behalf,"  that  in  their  behalf  the  State  was 
spending  $1000  a  day.  I  wonder  if  that  would  be  news  to 
the  company  and  the  governor? 

But  what  do  you  think  of  this? 

Perry  Heath,  Secretary  of  the  Republican  National  Com- 
mittee and  later  first  assistant  postmaster  general,  whose 
name  has  been  so  unfavorably  mentioned  in  connection  with 
the  postoffice  rascalities  now  exposed  and  being  prosecuted, 
but  who,  according  to  President  Roosevelt,  escaped  a  criminal 
prosecution  because  his  connection  with  them  was  "outlaw- 
ed," at  present  publisher  and  manager  of  the  Salt  Lake  Trib- 
une, editorially,  in  the  issue  of  that  paper  of  December  4th, 
and  with  the  assurances  of  one  sanctified,  becomes  the  great 


66  THE  WAY  OUT. 

apostle  of  economy  for  the  State  of  Utah.  He  probably  sees 
no  show  for  a  rake-off  from  any  appropriation  and  extra 
session  might  make.  He  says :  ' '  The  miners  can  become  very 
popular  now  by  accepting  the  terms  of  the  company  and 
averting  an  extra  session  of  the  legislature." 

Coming  from  such  a  source,  don't  that  .jar  you?  If  angles 
ever  weep,  this  is  their  opportunity. 

Even  Mother  Jones  must  be  muzzled ! 

"Scofield,  Utah,  Dec.  1,  1903. — County  and  town  authori- 
ties are  on  a  constant  watch  to  prevent  Mother  Jones  from  re- 
turning to  camp.  A  wagon  left  here  yesterday  for  the  pur- 
pose, it  is  said,  of  bringing  her  back.  Officers  learned  of  the 
object  of  the  wagon  trip  and  are  on  a  constant  lookout  for  the 
female  agitator.  Last  night  sentries  were  on  duty  at  all  the 
entrances  into  the  town.  Town  officers  declare  that  she  shall 
not  enter  the  camp  again." 

As  I  said  before,  it  is  not  violence  they  fear,  but  argument. 
It  is  not  because  she  is  an  agitator,  but  an  orator;  and  what 
kind  of  a  cause  must  the  Pleasant  "Valley  Coal  Company  have 
that  the  civil  and  military  pawer  of  the  State  will  lend  itself 
to  shut  off  talk  about  it.  Agitation  always  purifies.  So,  if 
Mother  Jones  is  an  agitator  she  is  a  purifier,  and  there  is 
certainly  something  about  that  company  or  its  methods  that 
needs  purifying  or  it  would  have  no  objection  to  agitation. 

Rev.  Dr.  Ross  Baker  of  Boise,  Idaho,  says  "it  is  never  safe 
to  an  evil  thing  to  agitate  it.     Inquiry  is  death  to  it." 

Corruption  always  avoids  the  light,  and  if  there  was  none 
in  that  particular  camp,  no  light  could  have  exposed  it.  If 
there  was,  it  should  have  been  exposed. 

Anyway,  the  whole  outfit  must  have  felt  silly,  mean,  small 
and  sneaking,  running  around  armed  trying  to  capture  an  old 
lady  whose  only  offense  was,  a  really  commendable  enthusiasm 
for  the  betterment  of  the  conditions  of  hired  men. 

We  talk  of  Russian  tyranny,  but  it  seems  a  coal  company 
may  use  the  State  of  Utah  (and  Colorado)  for  any  tyrannical 
purpose  it  deems  conducive  to  its  interests,  and  it  is  all  right. 

What  would  be  tyranny  if  done  in  Russia  is  proper  and 
lawful  if  done  in  Utah  or  Colorado. 


UTAH  TAXPAYERS,  REFLECT  OVER  THIS: 

"Salt  Lake,  Dec.  1,  1903.— Following  further  fruitless  ef- 
forts to  bring  about  a  settlement  of  the  Utah  coal  miners' 
strike  to-day,  Gov.  Wells  said  in  all  probability  he  would  call 
a  special  session  of  the  legislature  to  provide  funds  for  keep- 
ing the  State  militia  in  the  field. ' ' 

If  he  does,  the  ordinary  producers  of  Utah,  mostly  farmers, 
will  have  to  foot  the  bill.  No  matter  who  pays  it  in  the  first 
instance  they  must  pay  it  eventually.    The  coal  company  will 


THE  WAY  OUT.  67 

pay  none  of  it ;  that  is,  it  will  make  use  of  the  strike  as  a 
pretext  for  increasing  the  cost  of  coal  more  than  enough  to 
recoup  its  part  of  the  tax.  So  you,  Mr.  Producer,  will  not 
only  have  given  your  boy  for  a  soldier  to  help  the  company 
beat  the  miners  out  of  just  wages,  you  will  also  furnish  the 
money  to  keep  him  in  the  field  while  doing  it.  If  these  things 
are  favors  you  are  proud  of,  you  may  thank  your  tool  of  a 
governor  for  them. 


''CORPORATION  DECIDES  TO    MAKE    REDUCTIONS 
RANGING  FROM  FIVE  TO  TWENTY  PER  CENT." 

New  York,  Dec.  14. — The  statement  was  made  to-day  by  a 
leading  official  of  the  United  States  Steel  corporation  that, 
beginning  January,  1904,  about  90  per  cent  of  the  employees 
of  the  corporation  will  suffer  wage  reductions  ranging  from 
5  to  20  per  cent.  This  reduction  will  aft'ect  about  150,000 
workmen  in  the  various  grades  of  the  subsidiary  campanies. 
The  remaining  10  per  cent  of  employees  are  members  of  the 
Amalgamated  Association,  whose  wage  schedule  runs  to  July 
1,   1904." 

"Employes  of  the  corporation  will  suffer  wage  reduction" 
because  there  is  no  law  to  protect  them  and  they  can't  help 
themselves.  Yet,  of  course,  the  Courts  will  hold  this  to  be  an- 
other "mutual  contract  voluntarily  entered  into"  beween  the 
men  and  the  Company,  (that  is,  if  they  should  be  appealed 
to,  which  they  will  not  be,  because  it  would  do  no  good)  and 
not  to  be  interfered  with.  It  would  be  unconstitutional  you 
know  to  do  so.  The  Company  says  what  the  reduction  shall 
be  and  the  men  have  nothing  to  say  about  it,  but  it  is  a  volun- 
tary contract  just  the  same  in  the  eyes  of  the  Courts  and  law 
as  the  Courts  construe  it.  What  the  Company  says  shdl  be 
wages,  will  be  wages.  The  men  have  to  work  for  them,  starve 
or  "get,"  and  there  is  no  place  for  them  to  get  to  even  if 
they  had  the  money  to  pay  fares  over  corporation-owned  rail- 
roads that  ^vould  mercilessly  rob  them  of  the  last  dollar  to 
transport  them,  because  the  law  permits  them  to  charge 
twice  what  it  is  worth. 

But  why  this  cut  in  wages  1  Is  it  because  dividends  must 
be  paid,  or  is  it  because  the  stock  of  the  Company  has  recently 
gone  way  down  and  it  is  desired  to  make  a  showing  of  big 
profits  to  push  it  up  again,  thus  baiting  a  fresh  hook  for  suck- 
ers on  Wall  street? 

It's  no  trick  to  show  a  profit. 

Cut  the  wages  and  you've  got  it. 

Capitalists  all  understand  this. 

The  hired  man  can  stand  a  cut  and  never  feel  it,  he  has 
to;  but  the  stockholder  cannot  stand  one  in  dividends,  he 
don't  have  to.    This  dispatch  shows  how  they  do  it: 


68  THE  WAY  OUT. 

Philadelphia,  May  28. — "Revision  of  the  employees'  list 
just  made  by  the  Philadelphia  and  Reading  Railway  will  cut 
down  the  monthly  payroll  more  than  $20,000  and  so  save  the 
company  on  wages  about  $250,000  a  year. 

Here  lies  the  explanation  of  the  remarkable  April  state- 
ment of  the  Philadelphia  and  Reading,  which  showed  receipts 
of  $3,228,417,  against  $2,978,185  for  April,  1903,  while  opera^ 
ing  expenses  were  $1,784,988  or  actually  $82,27.8  less  than 
the  vear  before." 


WHAT  ALL  THE  FUSS  IS  ABOUT. 

But  is  it  necessary  to  cite  other  instances  of  oppression 
and  hardships  put  upon  hired  men?  Those  hired  men  who 
have  the  opportunity  to  read  a  large  daily  paper  (and  every 
hired  man  should  read  one  and  keep  informed  as  to  the  con- 
ditions of  hired  men  everywhere,  because  the  conditions  in 
one  locality  are  almost  certain  to  be  the  conditions  in  every 
other  in  time,  and  by  reading  of  the  troubles  of  others  he 
will  have  a  better  idea  how  to  meet  his  own  when  they  come) 
will  read  of  plenty  more,  and  yet  the  half  is  never  published. 
There  is  not  a  State  in  the  Union  or  a  country  on  earth 
where  troubles  do  not  come  between  hired  men  and  their  em- 
ployers, and  what  is  all  the  fuss  and  trouble  about?  Why 
must  great  cities  in  every  State  and  Nation  and  the  whole 
country  be  constantly  disturbed  by  strikes  and  lockouts  and 
all  their  attendant  distressing  and  ruinous  consequences'? 
"Why  are  employers  always  arrayed  against  their  hired  men 
and  hired  men  against  their  employers?  Why  is  it  and  what 
is  it  all  for?  Is  it  possible  the  trouble  cannot  be  discovered 
and  remedied? 

Is  it  possible  that  among  all  the  great  statesmen  of  the' 
world,  and  particularly  of  this,  the  reputed  greatest  and  most 
progressive  nation,  there  is  not  one  who  is  able  to  locale  the 
trouble,  or  who  has  the  courage  to  specify  it,  or  the  ability  to 
devise  a  way  which  everybody  would  recognize  as  feasible  and 
just,  to  put  an  effectual  stop  to  it? 

There  is  but  one  cause,  just  one,  and  it  is  strange  beyond 
imagination  that  this  one  should  baffle  the  supposedly  wisest 
men  of  the  world  to  discover  it  and  provide  against  it. 

It  is  strange  that  the  people  of  any  enlightened  nation  or 
state  will  serenely  look  on  and  continue  to  put  up  with  dis- 
turbances, inconveniences,  annoyances,  waste  of  time,  energy, 
money  and  irreparable  loss  from  a  cause  that  ought  to  be 
promptly  discovered  and  promptly  removed,  and  in  a  manner 
consistent  with  honor  and  justice  which  would,  therefore, 
make  it  acceptable  to  all. 

\Vliat  crisis  may  be  eventually  brought  on  by  these  in- 
creasing conflicts  between  hired  men  and  their  employers  if 


THE  AVAY   OUT.  69 

the  solution  of  labo]-  troubles  is  left  to  their  own  methods, 
no  one  can  more  than  make  a  guess  at ;  yet  it  is  certain  the 
troubles  will  never  settle  themselves  until  financial  ruin  shall 
have  needlessly  overtaken  millions  and  millions  more  will  have 
needlessly  endured  extreme  privation  and  suffering. 

It  is  also  ertain,  and  the  president,  all  the  governors,  con- 
gressmen, legislators,  judges,  employers  and  the  hired  men 
themselves  must  realize  it,  that  the  troubles  cannot  g<)  on 
indefinitely  without  the  danger  of  serious  consequences  to  the 
nation. 

That  they  have  got  to  stop  somewhere,  sometime,  somehow. 
Even  if  left  as  they  are  now.  to  be  settled  by  the  contending 
parties  as  best  they  can,  they  must  eventually  end  in  disaster 
to  one  or  the  other  or  both,  and  unfavorable  to  national  tran- 
quility; and  since  they  so  deeply  concern  the  happiness  and 
contentment  of  millions  of  people,  they  give  warning  of  popu- 
lar uprisings  which  should  arouse  to  prompt  and  effective 
action,  those  entrusted  with  the  destinies  of  the  nation,  to 
avert  them. 

It  is  not  wise  or  safe  to  permit  the  disputants  to  "fight 
it  out"  with  no  law  to  interfere,  the  stronger  or  more  powerful 
being  permited  to  have  its  way  without  any  regard  to  who  is 
right,  much  the  same  as  two  angry  men  are  sometimes  permit- 
ted to  "have  it  out"  with  their  fists. 

Every  dispute  between  a  hired  man  and  his  employer  that 
involves  the  principle  of  Justice,  concerns  the  dignity,  peace 
and  welfare  of  the  state  and  nation,  and  either,  therefore, 
has  a  right,  and  it  is  its  duty,  to  interfere  with  law  that  shall 
bring  either  party  into  court  at  the  request  of  the  other  and 
oblige  him  to  submit  to  its  jurisdiction  and  do  justice. 

The  whole  trouble  between  the  hired  man  and  his  employer, 
lies  in  the  foolish  and  stupid  policy  of  legislatures  and  courts 
of  trying  to  uphold  a  legal  fiction. 

The  fiction  consists  in  treating  the  consent  of  a  hired  man 
to  work  for  certain  wages  or  under  certain  conditions  as  a 
solemn  voluntary  contract,  when  in  fact  he  had  no  option 
but  to  consent,  starve,  beg  or  steal,  and  refusing  to  inquire 
into  the  facts  or  interfere  for  his  relief,  even  though  it  could 
be  shown  the  wages  paid  were  much  less  than  reasonable  or 
the  conditions  notoriously  unjust. 


70  THE  WAY  OUT. 


WHAT  THE  LAW  SHOULD  BE. 

It  should  be  the  law  that  every  court  shall,  on  complaint 
being  made,  go  behind  any  alleged  "voluntary  contract"  as 
to  wages  or  conditions  of  labor,  and  inquire,  not  only  if  it 
was  voluntary,  but  if  the  wages  and  conditions  are  reasonable, 
and  give  such  relief  as  Justice,  if  on  the  bench,  would  say 
each  is  entitled  to. 

Law  is  needed  that  applies  to  present  conditions  affecting 
the  hired  man  and  his  wages;  not  law  that  applied  to  con- 
ditions which  affected  him  and  his  wages  a  hundred  years  ago 
when  conditions  were  vastly  different  and  he  was  virtually 
independent  and  could  refuse  to  work  without  being  obliged 
to  starve,  steal  or  beg. 

As  long  as  courts  go  on  enforcing  contracts  to  work  for 
certain  wages  because  prima  facie,  they  appear  to  have  been 
voluntarily  entered  into,  and  refusing  to  go  behind  them  to 
enquire  if,  in  fact,  they  were  voluntarily  entered  into,  and 
if  so,  if  they  are  reasonable,  just  so  long  will  labor  troubles 
continue  to  disturb  industrial  peace..  But  when  they  do  what 
they  should  do,  go  behind  any  alleged  contract  and  ascertain 
the  facts  for  the  purpose  of  doing  justice,  and  do  it,  labor 
troubles  will  begin  to  diminish,  and  finally,  with  all  their 
hardships  disappear. 

Justice  can  harm  nobody,  nor  can  anybody  complain  of  it. 

No  law  can  be  of  any  possible  value  that  seeks  to  supplant 
truth  with  fiction,  that  is,  something  not  real — not  a  fact, 
and  it  is  purely  fiction  to  say  that  any  man  of  ordinary  under- 
standing, with  a  family  to  support,  ever  agrees  voluntarily 
with  a  rich  and  powerful  company  or  anybody  else,  to  work 
for  wages  away  below  Avhat  in  justice  he  should  receive. 

The  fact  that  his  wages  are  less  than  reasonable,  or  the 
conditions  unreasonably  hard,  ought  to  raise  the  presumption 
that  the  contract  was  not  voluntary  or.  that  the  man  was  a 
simpleton  in  need  of  a  guardian;  in  either,  of  which  events 
it  should  be  the  duty  of  the  court  to  interfere. 

An  agreement  to  labor  that  is  unpist  to  the  laborer,  is 
one  of  those  things  that  any  court  might  take  it  for  granted 
no  laboring  man  has  ever  voluntarily  made  and,  therefore, 
that  no  such  agreement  exists;  but,  if  it  does  exist  (that  is, 
a  voluntary  agreement  that  is  unjust)  the  court  should  hear 
evidence  and  revise  it  anyway,  in  the  interest  of  society. 

No  law  can  change  falsehood  into  truth,  and  the  theory 
of  law  that  he  who  agrees  to  accept  unjust  wages  in  exchange 
for  his  labor  thereby  voluntarily  agrees  to  do  so,  is,  and  ever 
since  capital  got  control  of  the  industries  of  the  country,  has 
been,  mere  fiction.  It  is  not  true.  It  never  was  true,  but  even 
if  it  was,  the  interest  of  society  demands  that  every  court 
should  disregard  it  and  set  it  aside. 


THE  WAY  OUT.  71 

Does  any  court  do  it?  No,  and  according  to  their  rulings 
there  is  absolutely  no  law  in  any  State  that  stands  between  the 
hired  man  and  his  employer  to  protect  him  from  being  com- 
pelled, if  he  is  poor,  to  work  for  insufficient  and  unjust  (I 
might  say  starvation)  wages;  and  the  lack  of  it  has  driven 
him  to  organize  for  self-protection. 

The  rule  that  nothing  is  as  sacred  as  human  life,  has  an 
exception,  which  is,  that  the  life  of  a  hired  man  is  noli  as 
sacred  as  his  pretended  agreement  to  work  for  unjust  wages. 
So  says  Greed,  and  so  hold  the  courts. 

If  a  man  agrees  to  work  for  wages  he  would  gradually 
starve  to  death  on,  because  it  is  his  only  show  to  keep  alive  a 
little  longer.  Greed  denies  his  right  to  demand  more,  and  the 
courts  stand  in  with  Greed. 

When  the  courts  change  front,  and  hold  his  life  more  sacred 
than  his  contract,  in  other  words,  treat  him  right,  the  hired 
man  will  make  no  more  trouble. 


MR.  FRANK  A.  MUNSEY, 

In  an  address  before  the  Merchants'  Club  of  Boston,  Dec, 
16,  1902,  said:  "Had  Capital  always  been  fair  and  generous 
with  Labor,  there  would  have  been  no  organized  labor.  It 
was  the  abuse  of  labor  on  the  part  of  capital  that  compelled 
labor  to  organize — to  organize  in  self-defense,  and  with  a 
manly  regard  for  rational  dignity.  To  a  greater  or  less  ex- 
tent it  had  been  down  trodden,  misused,  and  abused  for  cen- 


E.  E.  SCHMITZ, 

Mayor  of  San  Francisco,  in  a  speech  Oct.  12,  1903,  in  that 
city,  said:  "But  these  (labor)  disputes  are  easy  to  handle, 
if  you  only  show  you  mean  to  be  fair  and  just  to  the  wage 
earner.  That  is  all  he  wants.  Given  that,  he  is  willing  to 
meet  the  employer  half  way  and  agree  to  settle  all  trouble 
without  inconveniencing  the  whole  eitv." 


JOHN  WILSON, 

In  a  speech  before  the  Civic  Federation,  (which  is  an  as- 
sociation of  employers,  organized  in  opposition  to  labor  un- 
ions) at  Chicago,  Oct.  17,  1903,  and  presided  over  by  Senator 
Hanna,  is  reported  by  the  press  dispatches  to  have  said: 
' '  That  laboring  men  had  been  compelled  to  strike  because  theyi 
never  expected  Justice  until  thev  showed  force." 


72  THE   WAY  OUT. 


IDAHO  STATESMAN  (Nov.  13,  1903)  : 

"This  contention  of  nnionism  is  based  npon  the  simple 
principle  of  protection.  The  men  organize  for  protection  of 
their  rights." 

The  foregoing  admissions  that  labor  is  not  fairly  treated 
nor  properly  protected,  are  made  by  employee  of  labor  and 
are  given  merely  as  examples  to  show  what  nearly  everybody 
will  admit  is  true  whose  God  is  not  Greed.  There  are  un- 
doubtedly many  employers  who  are  deaf,  dumb  and  blind  to 
the  necessities,  comforts  and  rights  of  others,  and  look  upon 
hired  men  and  women,  even  children,  as  mere  merchandise 
and  of  no  consequence  except  to  Avear  out  their  lives  in  hard 
work  to  pile  up  wealth  for  them.  Others,  and  I  trust  they  are 
in  the  majority,  feel  a  deep  interest  in  those  they  hire  and 
would  gladly  welcome  some  plan  which  would  insure  justice  to 
them  as  well  as  to  themselves.  But  they  find  themselves  under 
conditions  which  compel  them  to  be  unfair  to  labor  in  order  to 
hold  their  own  Avith  others  in  the  same  line  of  business  (who 
care  nothing  for  their  hired  men  except  to  make  all  they  can 
out  of  them)  and  know  of  no  way  to  change  and  still  have 
an  equal  show  with  their  competitors. 


THE  WAY   OUT.  73 


PEOPLE  WHO  SNEER. 

It  is  wiser,  when  a  serious  condition  confronts  us,  to  face 
it  boldly  and  try  seriously  to  think  out  a  way  to  keep  it  from 
doing  us  harm.  It  is  safer  to  do  that  than  make  light  of  it, 
pay  no  attention  and  keep  right  on  dancing  to  the  music  of 
money-getting  while  the  condition  grows,  unmolsted,  until 
finally  it  gets  so  bad  it  is  impossible  for  human  effort  to  check 
it  or  avoid  its  consequences.  The  trouble  between  "Labor 
and  Capital"  is  such  a  condition. 

There  are  plenty  of  people  who  will  pass  over  the  complaint 
of  "no  work"  and  "poor  pay"  of  hired  men  with  the  sneer- 
ing remark  that  there  is  plenty  of  work  for  everybody  who 
has  a  mind  to  work,  at  good  wages,  and  it  is  a  man's  own 
folly  if  he  is  hard  up.  In  other  words,  they  saij  (I  won't  say 
"they  think",  because  they  don't)  no  serious  condition  con- 
fronts us  but  lazyness  and  profligacy.  Well,  that  is  what 
their  fathers  and  grandfathers  used  to  say  forty  or  fifty  years 
ago  (and  there  may  have  been  some  excuse  for  saying  it  then 
when  there  were  Western  territories  yet  to  be  settled)  and  the 
saying  has  been  passd  along  down  to  the  present  and  is  re- 
peated by  those  who  have  been  so  fortunate  as  to  have  never 
known  want,  and  are  therefore  unable  to  see  why  anybody  else 
should  ever  know  it,  although  the  Western  territories  are 
long  since  all  settled  and  conditions  are  entirely  different. 
They  are  perfectly  innocent  of  even  a  suspicion  that  their 
own  state  of  forehandedness  is  due  in  the  least  to  the  fact  that 
the  very  class  they  condemn  as  lazy  and  profligate  have  noth- 
ing. They  are  wholly  unable  to  see  that  if  that  class  was  even 
half  as  well  fixed  as  they  are,  they  themselves  would  neces- 
sarily have  secured  less  for  their  share  for  the  reason  that 
the  wealth  of  the  country  would  have  been  more  generally 
and  evenly  distributed  among  all.  If  the  condemned  class  im- 
providently  wasted  their  substance  somebody  got  it,  and  of 
course  it  was  those  who  now  have  plenty  and  condemn  them. 

I  may  be  .justified,  in  order  to  help  some  to  catch  on  to  the 
idea  I  wish  to  convey  in  the  last  parapraph,  in  digressing  a 
little  from  my  sub.ject  to  ask  those  who  are  quick  to  con- 
demn others  for  spending  their  money  foolishly  for  drink, 
tobacco,  feathers,  flowers  and  a  hundred  other  things  and 
jim-cracks  not  necessary  to  life,  instead  of  saving  every  cent 
of  it  and  buying  only  such  articles  as  they  actually  need,  etc. 
Suppose  all  people  everywhere  were  to  take  your  advice  and 
live  up  to  it  strictly  1  Did  you  ever  stop  to  think  what  effect 
it  would  have  on  your  business  ?  Or  on  the  tens  of  thousands 
who  would  have  to  close  their  shops,  stores,  stands,  saloons  and 
factories?  Or  on  the  hudreds  of  thousands  employed  in  manu- 
facturing and  distributing  the  goods  you  think  people  need- 
lessly spend  money  for? 


74  THE  WAY  OUT. 

Perhaps  many  will  conclude  that  the  prosperity  they  hap- 
pen to  be  able  to  boast  of,  every  bit  of  it,  rests  upon  the  very 
profligacy  they  condemn,  and  but  for  which,  they  would  not 
know  which  way  to  turn  to  make  an  honest  living.  Anyway, 
it  is  certain  that  millions  now  are  supported  by  this  folly  and 
weakness  (if  such  it  is)  of  others,  who  but  for  it  would  be 
obliged  to  go  about  something  else  to  live.  I  leave  this  side 
subject  here  for  those  Avho  may  wish  to  follow  it  for  them- 
selves in  as  many  directions  as  it  wnll  lead  them. 

It  is  not  true  that  there  is  plenty  of  work  for  everybody, 
nor  is  there  anything  like  it  at  good  wages  or  even  poor  wages, 
and  every  strike  proves  conclusively  that  there  is  not,  because 
there  are  always  plenty  of  idle  men  who,  but  for  their  sym- 
pathy for  the  strikers  would  be  glad  to  get  their  jobs,  and 
they  often  take  them  away  because  forced  by  their  destitute 
circumstances  to  do  so. 

The  serious  condition  that  confronts  the  country  and  must 
he  met,  is, 


THE  WAY  OUT.  75 


THE  DISCONTENT  OF  HIRED  MEN. 

The  problem  is,  how  to  stop  strikes,  lockouts  and  boycotts. 
It  can  be  done  only  by  giving  the  men  just  wages  and  treat- 
ment, and  this  mnst  be  done  without  doing  any  injustice  to 
employers  or  interfering  with  the  legal  right  of  men  to  freely 
contract. 

Can  this  be  done?  Yes,  but  the  first  thing  necessary  is  to 
have  a  clear  understanding  of  what  a  man's  legnl  right  to 
freely  contract  is. 

We  may  all  agree  that  it  is  a  right,  but  when  we  say  legal 
right,  we  qualify  it  and  might  possibly  differ  as  to  the  mean- 
ing of  the  qualification. 

I  say  no  one  can  have  a  legal  right  to  wrong  another,  and  it 
makes  no  difference  whether  he  attempts  to  do  so  by  means 
of  a  contract  or  without  one. 

Therefore,  when  a  contract  is  relied  on,  it  should  be  the 
duty  of  the  court  to  inquire  if  it  wrongs  either  party  to  it. 
If  not,  it  should  enforce  it ;  if  it  does,  it  should  refuse  to  en- 
force it  or  reform  it  to  do  justice  between  the  parties. 

No  court  should  be  allowed  to  turn  a  deaf  ear  to  a  wrong 
because  the  parties  agreed  to  it. 

When  courts  lend  their  assistance  to  enforcing  contracts  on 
the  ground  that  they  were  voluntarily  entered  into,  without 
stopping  to  inquire  if  by  its  terms  and  the  facts,  each  party 
gets  an  equivalent  for  what  he  gives,  it  prostitutes  the  law  to 
the  base  purposes  of  those  Avho  are  willing  to  make  use  of  it 
to  defraud  others,  and  encourages  them  to  do  so. 

The  consideration  is  the  part  of  every  contract  that  mostly 
concerns  the  parties  to  it,  because  it  affects  life,  liberty,  safety 
and  happiness ;  and  when  any  of  these  are  affected  the  State  is 
affected. 

The  obect  of  a  contract  is,  a  distinct  understanding  as  to 
what  the  parties  to  it  are  to  do. 

It  is  not  its  object  to  give  to  one  of  the  parties  some  ad- 
vantage over  the  other  and  (on  the  plea  that  the  contract  was 
voluntarily  made)  a  right  to  make  use  of  the  law  to  consum- 
mate it. 

The  whole  idea  involved  in  the  right  to  contract,  as  the  law, 
rightly  construed,  looks  at  it  is,  equal  exchange ;  that  is.  bene- 
fits balance,  each  party  gets  an  equivalent  for  what  he  gives, 
neither  is  wronged,  nor  would  he  be  if  the  law  should  enforce 
the  contract  on  the  demand  of  either. 

The  easy-going  and  pernicious  practice  of  courts  that  per- 
mits one  man  to  wrong  another  if  done  by  means  of  a  con- 
tract in  the  usual  course  of  business,  without  its  being  con- 
sidered a  crime,  a  misdemeanor  or  even  a  disgrace,  has  got  to 
be  stopped.  They  must  be  compelled  to  take  a  firm,  bold  and 
uncompromising   stand    against   all    wrong,    whether   pei*pe- 


76  THE  WAY  OUT. 

trated  under  the  excuse  that  it  was  authorized  by  a  contract 
voluntarily  entered  into  or  otherwise. 

No  contract  can  authorize  or  legalize  a  wrong.  Such  a  con- 
tract is  against  public  policy  and  void  from  the  beginning. 
No  consent  of  parties,  however  solemnly  made,  can,  by  any 
twist,  turn  or  construction  ever  legalize  any  contract  or  agree- 
ment which,  if  enforced,  would  give  one  of  the  parties  to  it 
any  advantage  over  the  other  or  anything  more  than  an 
equal  benefit. 

When  courts  take  this  obviously  just  view  of  the  law  as  to 
one's  right  to  contract,  there  will  be  no  more  discontent 
among  hired  men  to  amount  to  an^-thing.  Organized  labor  may 
disband,  strikes,  boycotts  and  lockouts  will  cease.  No  injus- 
tice will  be  done  employers,  and  nobody's  right  to  freely  con- 
tract will  be  denied.  He  will  simply  be  stopped  from  exer- 
cising a  right  he  never  had.  No  one  ever  had  a  free  right  to 
contract  so  as  to  wrong  another,  and  if  stopped  from  doing  so 
no  right  is  taken  from  him. 


THE  WAY  OUT.  77 


WHAT  THE  COURTS  MUST  DO. 

Courts  must,  with  an  unhesitating  and  unflinchino;  determin- 
ation, change  the  recognized  rule  that  a  man's  ability  to  get 
the  best  of  another  is  his  license  to  do  it,  and  the  only  limit 
to  his  right  is  the  limit  of  his  ability. 

The  consciences  of  judges  and  courts  must  be  brought  up 
to  the  humiane,  comprehensive  and  just  standard  contem- 
plated by  the  constitution,  and  enforce  the  doing  of  justice 
by  all  men  to  all  men  regardless  of  the  ability,  wealth  or  oc- 
cupation of  one,  or  the  stupidity,  poverty  or  occupation  of  the 
other,  to  the  end  that  every  human  being,  without  exception, 
shall  be  protected  and  really  get  the  benefit  of  the  rights 
which  the  constitution  (of  California)  says  are  inalienably 
his,  namely,  "of  enjoying  and  defending  life  and  liberty  and 
pursuing  and  obtaining  safety  and  happiness." 

The  plain  object  and  intent  of  the  constitution  in  this  re- 
gard has  been,  by  the  courts,  from  a  careless  and  unpardon- 
able misconception  of  the  true  and  rightful  scopp  and  limits 
of  individual  rights,  in  administering  the  law,  fearfully  over- 
look and  disregard  it. 

They  have  been  seduced  by  custom  and  greed  into  the 
serious  blunder  of  recognizing  as  an  individual  right,  a  false 
right ;  that  is,  one  that  does  not,  never  did  and  never  can  exist 
as  a  right,  and  which  has  led  to  the  complete  suppression  and' 
overthrow  of  every  benefit  which  the  constitutional  rights 
above  quoted  were  intended  to  secure  inalienably  to  every  in- 
dividual. A  false  right,  the  very  nature  and  necessary  con- 
sequence of  which  is,  so  long  as  upheld,  to  kill  and  destroy 
the  beneficence  of  these  constitutional  rights.  The  two  cannot 
live  together,  because  one  is  exactly  opposed  to  and  inconsist- 
ent with  the  other,  so  if  one  lives,  the  other  must  die. 

Up  to  date,  as  a  consequence  of  the  courts  having  recog- 
nized and  upheld  this  false  right  and  ignored  the  interes-6 
which  society  must  necessarily  have  in  all  its  members,  these 
constitutional  rights  have  slumbered  ever  since  they  were  first 
proclaimed.  All  that  is  left  of  them  are  words,  without  force 
or  effect.  How  long  they  will  sleep  depends  upon  how  soon 
courts  go  back  to  the  constitution  for  fresh  inspiration  and 
whether  or  not  they  catch  enough  of  it  to  begin  over  and 
place  the  welfare  of  society  above  that  of  individuals  who 
would  sink  society  and  all  who  stand  in  the  way  of  their 
schemes  to  get  more  than  their  just  share  of  the  products  of 
labor. 

The  interests  of  society  are  superior  to  every  other  interest 
and  must  be  the  first  to  be  considered.  Society's  first  concern 
is,  and  always  must  be,  its  own  preservation,  and  it  carefully 
provided  for  that  by  declaring  in  the  constitution  that  "thei 
inalienable  rights  of    all  men  are  those  of   enjoying  and  de- 


78  THE  WAY  OUT. 

fending  life  and  liberty  and  pursuing  and  obtaining  safety 
and  happiness." 

But  for  this  declaration  in  the  fundamental  law,  society 
would  have  left  itself  wide  open  to  be  exploited,  undermined 
and  destroj^ed  by  the  very  processes  which  are  now,  with  the 
sanction  of  the  courts,  incessantly  at  work  exploiting,  under- 
mining and  destroying  it.  But  that  declaration,  duly  en- 
forced, will  save  it. 

Of  what  value  is  a  declaration  as  to  rights  if  the  rights  are 
never  to  be  enjoyed?  These  rights  are  not  enjoyed,  and  my 
object  is  to  show,  in  part,  why  and  how,  also  the  relation 
which  those  whys  and  hows  bear  to  the  troubles  all  countries 
experience  between  what  is  popularly  called  ''Capital  and 
Labor." 


THE  WAY   OUT.  79 


THE  BUSINESS  RUDE. 

Prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  constitution,  it  was  a  business 
rule  among  all  men  that  each  had  a  right  to  humbug  the  other' 
and  take  any  and  every  little  advantage  in  order  to  get  the 
best  of  a  trade,  bargain  or  contract  of  any  kind,  and  no  one 
considered  there  was  anything  wrong  about  it.  It  was  "busi- 
ness" and  considered  "sharp"  and  smart  to  do  so.  Eveiy- 
Tjody  expected  everybodv  to  do  it  and  was  on  the  look-out  for 
it. 

The  one  that  succeeded,  smiled,  complimented  himself  and 
was  complimented  by  his  neighbors  for  his  shrewdness.  If 
he  was  exceptionally  successful,  his  fame  spread  until  he  be- 
came known  far  and  wide  as  a  financier  and  great  man,  and 
soon  all  the  people  clamored  for  him  as  a  leader  and  insisted 
on  promoting  him  to  some  high  political  office;  while  other 
business  men  who  had  not  succeeded  quite  so  well  in  hum- 
buggery,  wanted  him  at  the  head  of  their  affairs  because  of  his 
proven  "executive  ability,"  and  bid  a  big  price  to  get  him. 
So  that  a  big  reward  of  some  kind  always  awaited  such  a  man. 

Of  course,  since  one  was  rewarded  and  honored  instead  of 
being  despised  and  disgraced,  as  he  should  have  been,  for 
cultivating  a  superior  skill  in  trickery,  it  was  a  great  incentive 
to  all  men  to  learn  all  the  tricks  possible  to  get  the  best  of 
others. 

This  business  rule  did  not  originate  in  California,  however, 
nor  was  it  confined  to  Californians.  Nobody  knows  when,  or 
where  it  originated;  but  as  it  prevailed  wherever  civilization 
existed,  if  not  over  the  whole  world,  and  is  known  to  veryl 
ancient,  it  is  probable  that  the  first  two  of  our  savage  ances- 
tors who  developed  intelligence  enough  to  desire  to  make  a 
trade,  were  the  first  to  launch  it,  and  of  course  with  schemers 
it  soon  became  popular  and  was  gradually  adopted  by  all 
classes,  finally  fastening  itself  upon  society  as  a  right. 

If  what  I  have  said  is  true  as  to  the  origin  of  the  rule,  it 
was  at  a  time  so  early  in  the  history  of  society  that  the  only 
right  thought  of  or  recognized  was,  the  right  of  the  indi'- 
vidual.  It  was  before  such  a  thing  as  "rights  of  society" 
were  thought  of;  that  is,  before  the  time  when  any  one  sus- 
pected he  was  under  any  obligation  to  sacrifice  any  personal 
right  or  interest  in  order  to  preserve  the  rights  and  interests 
of  all.  At  all  events,  it  had  prevailed  long  enough  before  our 
constitution  to  become  generally  and  thoroughly  established 
as  proper  and  legitimate,  and  it  was  seldom  the  courts  ever 
interfered. 

In  the  course  of  time,  however,  the  mischief  and  distress  it 
caused,  aroused  society  (which  by  this  time  had  discovered 
itself  and  that  it  had  rights)  to  try  and  do  something  to  pro- 
tect itself,  which  from  time  to  time  it  sought  to  do  by  enact- 


80  THE  WAY  OUT. 

ing  laws  for  the  protection  of  its  members.  It  did  not  enact 
laws  with  a  view  to  killing  the  rule  and  wiping  it  out  alto- 
gether, but  with  a  vieAV  of  letting  it  live  and  restricting  its 
operation,  which  it  was  supposed  could  be  done  in  such  a  man- 
ner as  to  leave  men  free  to  go  on  taking  advantage  of  each 
other  in  their  bargainings  and  yet  protect  society.  The  idea 
seems  to  have  been  to  restrain  or  prevent  them  from  wi*ong- 
ing  each  other  to  too  great  an  extent  or  in  certain  particular 
ways,  not  to  prohibit  them  absolutely,  and  so  they  made  laws 
defining  and  punishing  such  wrongs  as  house-breaking,  for- 
gery, counterfeiting,  embezzlement,  extortion,  false  persona- 
tions and  others,  and  re-enacted  them  after  the  adoption  of 
the  constitution,  just  as  if  it  had  made  no  mention  of  men's 
inalienable  rights  at  all. 

In  doing  that,  society  made  its  first  blunder  in  dealing  with 
the  matter. 

The  blunder  consisted  in  mistaking  a  great  wrong  for  a 
great  right  and  undertaking  to  regulate  it  (and  it  is  doing  the 
same  thing  yet),  when  it  should  have  known  that  the  rule  was 
totally  wrong  and  a  wrong  cannot  be  regulated.  It  is  an  im- 
possible thing  to  do,  and  the  law  cannot  do  an  impossible 
thing.  The  only  thing  that  can  be  done  with  a  wrong  is  to* 
let  it  alone  or  kill  it  root  and  branch.  It  cannot  be  com- 
promised with.  It  is  the  opposite  of  right  and  cannot  be 
blended  in  harmony  with  it  any  more  than  oil  can  be  mixed 
in  harmony  with  water  . 

It  is,  and  always  was  wrong  for  one  person  to  wrong  an- 
other, no  matter  how  he  does  it,  or  how  little,  and  no  degree 
of  popularity  can  make  it  right,  nor  can  lapse  of  tim.e,  nor 
law,  nor  any  number  of  them.  Therefore,  when  society 
sought  to  uphold  the  business  rule  that  it  is  right  and  proper 
for  one  man  to  do  wrong  by  getting  the  best  of  another  in  a 
trade,  bargain  or  contract,  and  at  the  same  time  undertook  to 
pick  out,  name  and  punish  by  law  particular  wrongs,  which 
were  in  reality  only  the  sum  of  the  lesser  wrongs  it  tolerated, 
it  was  an  attempt  to  make  a  compromise  with  the  general 
wrong.  It  was  the  same  as  saying,  "it  is  not  wrong  to  db 
wrong,  unless  the  wrong  done  is  prohibited  by  statute. ' ' 

The  law  books  say,  "there  is  no  wrong  without  a  remedy," 
but  it  is  not  so ;  there  are  plenty  of  them  which  no  law  or  court 
takes  any  notice  of.  They  are  considered  beneath  the  dignity 
of  laws  and  courts,  and  yet  many  of  them  are  big  enough  to 
affect  the  security,  happiness  and  lives  of  the  people. 

Instead  of  specifying  certain  things  as  wrongs  and  pre- 
scribing punishments  for  them,  society  should  have  struck  at 
all  wrong;  and  no  matter  when,  where  or  how  practiced,  or 
the  degree  of  terpitude  involved,  should  have  said  it  is  a  wrong 
and  shall  not  escape  exposure  or  punishment.  It  should  have 
said  no  wrong  is  too  small  to  be  noticed.  "Do  justice  to  all 
under  all  circumstances"  should  have  been  its  command, 
"No  man  shall  be  allowed  to  take  any  advantage  of  another 


'J^HE   WAY   OUT.  81 

under  any  pretext  whatever,  even  under  the  guise  of  a  mutual 
contract, ' '  should  have  been  the  business  rule  enforced. 

But  society  did  not  do  that.  It  left  the  strong  and  un- 
scrupulous free  to  take  advantage  of  and  wrong  the  weak  and 
scrupulous,  and  to  make  it  easier  for  them  to  do  so,  its  courts 
invented  the  doctrine  of  the  sacredness  of  a  mutual  contract ; 
the  most  damnable,  indefensible  and  villainous  contrivance  of 
law  for  helping  one  man  to  rob  and  oppress  another  that 
could  have  been  devised,  and  destructive  of  society  itself. 

Where  does  any  man  get  authority  for  the  right  to  wrong 
another  by  means  of  a  mutual  contract? 

Does  any  constitution  of  any  State  authorize  it  ? 

No;  it  is  an  invention  of  the  courts.  In  California  the 
courts  pretend  that  Section  16,  Art.  I,  of  the  constitution 
sanctions  and  ratifies  the  old  business  rule  that  prevailed  be- 
fore its  adoption,  but  it  is  not  so.  They  have  misinterpreted 
that  section  and  are  doing  it  yet  in  the  interest  of  rogaies. 

Sec.  16,  Art.  I,  of  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  California 
reads:  '*No  law  impairing  the  obligations  of  contracts  shall 
ever  be  passed,"  and  whenever  a  rogue  is  one  of  the  parties 
to  a  mutual  contract  that  gives  him  an  advantage  over  the 
other  party  to  it,  he  always  claims  the  constitution  is  behind 
him  and  gives  him  a  right  to  enforce  it,  and  the  courts  say 
the  same;  but  they  are  both  mistaken.  The  constitution  does 
nothing  of  the  kind.  It  is  ridiculous  to  suppose  the  constitu- 
tion includes  or  has  any  reference  to  swindling  contracts  or 
any  contract  except  such  as  gives  each  party  to  it  a  quid  pro 
quo,  that  is  a  fair  exchange,  just  recompense,  as  much  for  as 
much. 

Any  interpretation  that  would  make  it  uphold  and  enforce 
a  contract  that  wrongs  one  of  the  parties  to  it,  no  matter  if  it 
was  mutually  entered  into  without  fraud,  would  be  to  make  the 
constitution  directly  conflict  with  itself,  for  its  general  ob- 
ject was,  and  is,  the  protection  of  every  man  equally  in  his 
inalienable  right  to  enjoy  and  defend  life  and  liberty  and 
pursue  and  obtain  safety  and  happiness,  not  to  deprive  him  of 
such  protection. 

Would  any  court,  or  anyone  else,  say  men  cannot  be  de- 
prived of  life  or  liberty  or  safety  or  happiness  by  means  of 
mutual  cantracts  which  give  one  of  the  parties  an  advantage 
over  the  other,  or  that  it  has  never  been  done?  It  is  true, 
men  enjoy  a  kind  of  life,  a  kind  of  liberty,  a  kind  of  safety 
and  a  kind  of  happiness  now,  but  is  it  the  full  and  complete 
life,  liberty,  safety  and  happiness  they  should  have  and  that 
the  constitution  contemplates?  And  is  not  their  incomplete 
enjoyment  due  to  the  fact  that  they  have  been  swindled  out  of 
it  mostly  by  means  of  the  mutual  contracts  they  have  entered 
into  and  which  the  courts  have  held  should  be  enforced,  be 
cause  mutual,  without  stopping  to  inquire  if  they  are  just? 

Because  society  did  not  long  ago  set  its  face  resolutely 
against  all  wrong,  but  tolerated  and  encouraged  those  men 
most  resourceful   in  methods  of  wronging  others  and  who 


82  THE  WAY  OUT. 

could  wrong  the  greatest  number,  permitting  its  courts  to  en- 
force their  unjust  contracts,  thus  helping-  them  to  do  it,  it  is 
to-day  wrestling  with  a  condition  of  industrial  slavery  that 
is  appalling.  A  condition  it  is  much  concerned  to  know  what 
to  do  with,  and  one  which  must  be  remedied  or  a  few  more 
years  will  surely  bring  those  "sadder  developments  yet  to 
come"  predicted  by  Mr,  Cleveland,  and  what  they  will  be, 
God  only  knows. 

If  industrial  slavery  exists,  it  must  have  had  its  cause,  and 
the  unpardonable  and  indefensible  attitude  of  the  courts 
which  permits  one  man  to  wrong  another  on  the  plea  of  a 
mutual  contract,  is  chiefly  responsible  for  it. 

In  this  lies  the  secret  of  the  power  of  great  corporations  to 
defeat  hired  men  of  every  vestige  of  their  rights  guaranteed 
by  the  constitution,  and  they  make  good  use  of  it  to  do  so. 


THE  WAY   OUT.  83 


ATTEMPTS  TO  CUT  OUT   CAUSES  THAT  HAD  FOS- 
TERED INDUSRTIAL  WRONGS. 

At  the  time  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  the  people 
undertook  to  start  the  new  nation  off  on  principles  broad! 
enoue^h  to  cut  out  the  causes  that  had  always  fostered  the  in- 
dustrial wrongs  men  had  suffered,  and  lay  the  foundation  for 
insuring  security  and  happiness  to  future  generations,  so  they 
said: 

"We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident,  that  all  men  are 
created  equal,  that  they  are  endowed  by  their  creator  with 
certain  inalienable  rights,  that  among  these  are  life,  liberty 
and  the  pursuit  of  happiness." 

The  people  of  California,  in  adopting  a  constitution  for 
their  government,  seemed  to  think  the  language  of  the  De- 
claration of  Independence  could  be  improved  upon  for  the 
purpose  of  securing  the  rights  of  idividuals,  so  they  said : 

(Sec.  1,  Art.  I.)  "All  men  are  by  nature  free  and  inde- 
pendent and  have  certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which  are 
those  of  enjoying  and  defending  life  and  liberty;  acquiring, 
possessing  and  protecting  property;  and  pursuing  and  ob- 
taining safety  and  happiness." 

In  making  use  of  these  words  they  were  evidently  deter- 
mined to  let  all  the  world  know  and  have  no  misunderstanding 
about  it,  that  every  citizen  of  the  State  was,  and  should  al- 
ways be,  free  and  independent ;  that  he  should  have  the  right 
to  enjoy  life ;  the  right  to  defend  life ;  the  right  to  enjoy  lib- 
erty; the  right  to  defend  liberty;  the  right  to  acquire  prop- 
erty; the  right  to  possess  property,  (it  does  not  say 
the  right  to  own  property),  the  right  to  defend  property; 
the  right  to  pursue  and  obtain  safety  and  the  right  to  pursue 
and  obtain  happiness ;  and  that  every  one  of  these 
rights  should  be  and  remain  inalienable ;  that  is,  that 
no  citizen  of  the  State  should  ever  be  deprived  of  them,  or 
any  of  them  by  any  person,  power  or  process  whatever;  nor 
could  any  individual  by  any  means  or  methods  whatever  de- 
prive himself  of  them  or  any  of  them,  except  by  dying.    , 

Now,  that  all  sounds  first-class  in  every  particular.  A  per- 
son would  think  it  could  not  be  improved  upon  for  the  pur- 
pose of  declaring  and  safe-guarding  these  rights  to  every 
person.  One  would  think  to  read  it.  if  he  was  away  oft'  in — 
Africa,  for  instance,  that  every  man,  woman  and  child  in 
that  "glorious  California"  had  a  solid  grip  on  Life,  Liberty 
and  Happiness  and  on  the  Possession  of  sufficient  Property  to 
make  each  of  these  things,  which  all  desire,  a  certainty,  some- 
thing absolutely  secure  to  them  and  their  children  forever; 
that  no  matter  what  happened,  none  of  these  could  be  taken 
from  them. 
But,  did  the  members  of  the  constitutional  convention  who 


84  THE  WAY  OUT. 

got  up  that  Declaration  of  Rights,  and  submitted  it  to  the 
people  for  adoption  know  what  they  were  doing  1 

Did  they  purposely  frame  it  to  proclaim  the  doom  of  greed  1 

Did  the  people  know  when  they  adopted  it  they  were  laying 
the  foundation  for  the  overthroAV  and  utter  destruction  of 
all  the  selfish  rules  and  customs  which,  up  to  that  time,  had 
been  practiced  to  keep  them  out  of  the  enjoyment  of  the' 
rights  they  had  just  declared  were  inalienably  theirs? 

If  nobody  had  in  mind  this  sweeping  reform,  this  going 
back  to  first  principles  to  secure  the  rights  acknowledged, 
why  were  these  rights  declared  at  all? 

AAHiy  did  they  not  keep  silent  as  to  the  rights  of  all  and 
say  "there  is  but  one  right,  the  right  of  the  trickiest,  shreivd- 
est,  scheming  liar,  and  his  right  is  to  get  all  eveiybody  else 
has  or  is  entitled  to  if  he  can,  and  keep  it  to  mould  and  rot  or 
use  it  to  corrupt  others,  or  corner  it  so  no  one  may  enjoy  life, 
liberty,  safety  and  happiness,  except  as  it  pleases  him. 

That  was  the  only  right  recognized  before  tb^  constitution, 
and  one  would  think  from  the  wording  of  that  document 
that  its  object  was  to  wipe  it  out  and  substitute  in  its  place  the 
right  of  everybody  to  have  things,  so  everybody  could  enjoy 
life,  liberty,  safety  and  happiness,  and  nobody  be  able  to  cor- 
ner anything  to  prevent  such  enjoyment.  But  as,  since  the 
adoption  of  the  constitution,  the  right  of  the  schemer  and  liar 
has  not  been  interfered  with,  it  would  seem  that  the  rights  of 
all  were  not,  after  all,  a  matter  of  much  consequence,  or  else 
the  courts  have  been  hoodooed,  they  have  never  paid  the  slight- 
est attention  to  seeing  that  anybody  enjoyed  them.  They  have 
interpreted  the  constitution  to  mean  that  those  who  made  it 
did  not  mean  it  should  mean  what  it  says,  and,  as  a  conse- 
quence, the  one  right  has  continued  to  flourish,  if  anything, 
the  constitution  has  been  interpreted  to  help  it  to  flourish. 


THE  AVAY  OUT.  85 


THE  COMMITTEE  FROM  MARS. 

Let  us  suppose  that  some  fellow,  with  the  assistance  of  God, 
went  to  the  planet  Mars  about  twenty-three  years  after  the 
adoption  of  the  amended  constitution  of  the  State  of  Califor- 
nia, and  took  with  him  a  true  copy  of  Sec.  1,  Art.  I,  (which 
contains  the  Declaration  of  Rights)  certified  by  the  Secretary 
of  State  to  be  such,  over  his  hand  and  the  Great  Seal  of  the 
State,  but  not  another  word  of  information  about  the  earth, 
spoken  or  written. 

That  when  he  got  there  he  found  a  strong  party  of  Social- 
ists who  had  been  laboring  long  and  hard  to  get  the  people  to 
adopt  their  ideas  of  how  things  should  be  arranged  and  man- 
aged to  secure  their  rights,  and  they  were  just  then  in  the 
excitement  of  holding-  a  big  convention. 

He  stepped  to  the  platform  during  a  lull  in  the  proceedings 
and  handed  the  chairman  the  copy  of  Sec.  1,  Art.  I,  he  had 
brought  along. 

The  chair,  after  examining  it  and  realizing  what  it  was,  com- 
manded "Order!"  and  requested  the  secretary  to  read  it 
aloud  to  the  convention. 

The  Secretary  then  read  as  follows: 
Solar  System  No.  1; 
Planet  Earth, 
Western  Hemisphere, 
United  States  of  America, 
State  of  California. 

"Constitution  of  the  State   of   California. 
Article  1. 

Sec.  1.  All  men  are  by  nature  free  and  independent,  and 
have  certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which  are  those  of  en- 
joying and  defending  life  and  liberty;  acquiring,  possessing 
and  protecting  property;  and  pursuing  and  obtaining  safety 
and  happiness." 

The  secretary  had  no  sooner  finished  than  the  convention 
was  in  great  excitement.  Every  member  recognized  at  once 
in  what  he  had  just  heard  read,  an  acknowledgment  of  the 
principles  of  Socialism,  and  without  hesitation  concluded  that 
the  industrial  and  social  relations  of  the  people  in  the  State 
of  California,  United  States  of  America,  Western  Hemis- 
phere, Planet  Earth,  had  reached  that  nerfect  state  they 
wished  their  own  people  to  enjoy.  That  Declaration  in  their 
Constitution  left  no  doubt  of  it,  and  the  news  flew,  creating 
the  greatest  enhusiasm  among  Socialists  ever  before  heard 
on  the  planet  JNIars. 

The  result  of  this  positive  proof  as  to  the  certain  triumph 
of  socialist  principles  on  earth  was,  that  every  last  socialist 
orator  packed  his  grip  and  started  out  with  fresh  zeal  to 
stump  it  for  the  cause.    Pointing  his  hearers  to  Earth  he  told 


8G  THE  WAY  OUT. 

them  of  the  glorious  example  and  advanced  civilization  of 
those  incomparable  men  inhabiting  the  State  of  California 
who  had  the  good  sense  to  declare  for  a  government  based 
on  first  principles,  the  very  ones  we  have  been  advocating, 
and  because  of  it,  were  able  to  climb  out  of  industrial  serf- 
dom and  enjoy  their  God-ordained  inalienable  right  to  Life. 
Liberty  and  Happiness. 

"What  a  grand,  complete  and  satisfying  thing  life  must  be 
down  there  in  that  sunny  California,  United  States  of  Am- 
erica, Western  Hemisphere,  Planet  Earth;  a  perfect  Paradise, 
where  every  one  is  secure  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  these  fun- 
damental rights,  and  distress  is  unknown.  Where  no  one, 
not  even  the  humblest,  suffers  pnvation.  oppression,  want, 
misery  or  injustice  at  the  hands  of  the  rich  as  you  do  here, 
because  all  live  under  the  protection  of  this  imperishable 
Declaration,  which  makes  those  things  impossible. 

"Think  of  it,  my  friends!  Think  how  you  are  constantly 
robbed  of  what  your  industrious  hands  produce ;  how  you  are 
oppressed  by  the  few  plutocrats  of  ]\Iars — your  own  beauti- 
ful Mars — who  have  gradually  and  slyly  shaped  the  laws  and 
manipulated  the  courts  until  they  have  everything  their  own 
way. 

"Have  they  not  acquired  title  to  all  the  land,  and  control 
of  everything  that  is  necessary  to  life  1 

"Do  they  not  deny  your  right  to  everything  except  the 
driblets  in  wages  it  pleases  them  to  pay  you? 

"What  else  have  you?  Put  your  finger  on  one  thing  if 
you  can,  and  say,  'that  is  mine  clear  of  debt.'  You  know 
that  very  few  of  you  can  do  it;  and  isn't  it  a  shame  and  dis- 
grace to  men  and  women  of  your  high  intelligence  and  un- 
doubted courage  who  outnumber  and  could  out-vote  your 
oppressors  ten  to  one  to  longer  submit  to  these  wrongs  when, 
by  simply  uniting  and  voting  together  for  those  of  your  own 
class,  known  to  be  such,  you  could  so  easily  rout  the  robbers? 

"Why,  bless  you!  could  the  shrewd  and  brainy  people  of 
the  Commonwealth  of  California,  United  States  of  Am'^rica, 
Western  Hemisphere,  Planet  'Earth,  who  dwell  in  the  security 
which  this  (waving  above  his  head  the  Declaration)  glorious 
and  invincible  document  gives  them,  know  of  your  stupid 
and  unpardonable  political  practice  of  splitting  the  power  of 
your  votes  at  each  election  between  the  candidates  put  up  by 
the  Plutes,  and  whom  you  should  know  will  be  their  willing 
tools  to  fix  things  so  as  to  keep  you  where  you  are  and  never 
let  you  acquire  any  other  interest  on  the  Mars  than  the  privil- 
ege of  doing  the  work;  could  they  know  how  you  thus  ?rray 
yourselves  against  and  fight  each  other  instead  of  your  com- 
mon enemy,  they  would  laugh  at  your  gullibility,  pity  your 
ignorance  and  sneer  with  contempt  at  such  of  you  as  make  pre- 
tensions to  possessing  any  manhood  whatever.  They  would  sav 
you  are  wholly  destitute  of  that  spirit  of  greatness  which 
always  inspires  those  deserving  to  be  free. 

"Could  they  talk  to  you  they  would  tell  you  that  better 


THE  WAY  OUT.  87 

conditions  never  come  to  cowards ;  that  hope  always  precedes 
a  plan  as  thought  precedes  an  effort,  that  he  who  sleeps  or 
plays  when  thoughts  are  necessary  to  his  rights,  will  never  get 
them. 

"No,  my  friends,  your  inaction  and  indifference  to  the  in- 
dustrial chains  that  bind  you  to  pei-petual  toil  for  the  benefit 
of  others,  when  you  have  the  strength  to  break  them,  is 
enough  to  astonish  the  Devil  and  I  appeal  to  you  again  to 
awake,  arouse,  stir  yourselves  and  cast  them  off.  Be  no  longer 
the  timid  slaves  of  your  inferiors,  challenge  at  the  ballot  box 
their  right  to  own  the  Mars  or  rule  your  lives  and  destinies. 
Put  an  eternal  end  to  their  insufferable  tyranny  and  let  us 
make  and  enforce  a  Declaration  like  unto  this  that  blesses  our 
progressive,  free,  independent  and  happy  neighbors  down 
there  in  the  State  of  California,  United  States  of  America, 
AVestem  Hemisphere,  Planet  Earth!  (and  the  vast  assembly 
arose  en  masse,  threw  up  their  hats  and  cheered. ) 

"The  perfect  liberty  and  security  which  our  brothers  in 
one  comer  of  yonder  bright  blazing  star  now  enjoy,  is  yours 
my  sivindled  countymen  if  you  will  only  decide  to  take  it ! 

"How  much  longer  will  you  tamely  submit  to  being  robbed 
of 'the  privileges  and  rights  which  God  means  for  all  men;  the 
privilege  to  toil,  to  breathe  pure  air,  to  till  the  fertile  soil. 
The  right  to  live,  to  love,  to  woo,  to  wed,  and  earn  for  hungiy 
mouths  their  meed  of  bread'? — I  thank  you  for  your  earnest 
attention."  (The  audience  again  arose,  threw  their  hats  and 
were  yelling  approval  when  a  venerable  Piute  who  had  been 
listening  got  up,  and  putting  both  hands  up.  palms  outward 
as  if  to  pronounce  a  benediction,  commanded  silence.)  "Air. 
Chairman,  I  should  like  to  know  what  proof  this  Socialist  has 
of  what  he  has  been  saying.  These  good  people  have  it  hard 
sometimes  in  periods  of  depression,  it  is  true,  but  so  do  we; 
still  they  have  generally  been  contented  with  the  lot  the  good 
Lord  has  seen  fit  to  provide  for  them  and  I  think  it  is  very 
wrong  for  this  enthusiast  and  disturber  to  come  here  and  try 
to  inflame  their  minds  against  the  present  order  of  things 
unless  he  has  proof  of  a  better  way." 

Soci.  "The  proof  is  right  here,  (holding  up  the  copy  of 
Declaration  of  Kights  from  California)  read  this  official  d<  eii- 
ment  it  speaks  for  itself. ' ' 

Piute.  (Reads  it)  "I  admit  that  a  true  construction  of 
the  paper  should  give  the  people  of  the  State  of  California, 
United  States  of  America,  Western  Hemisphere,  Planet  Earth 
all  the  rights  you  mention,  but  what  I  claim  is  that,  notwith- 
standing the  document  says  such  and  such  rights  belong  to 
them,  you  have  no  proof  that  they  actually  enjoy  them; "and 
so  I  say  you  are  nothing  but  an  agitator,  a  disturber  and  the 
police  sliould  run  yon  in  or  make  you  keep  still." 

Soci.  "I  am  indebted  to  the  gentleman  for  his  moderation 
and  am  pleased  to  note  his  admission  that  this  document  is 
broad  enough  to  give  to  all  the  people  it  was  made  to  protect 
all  the  rights  I  have  named.    In  regard  to  his  statement  that 


88  THE  WAY  OUT. 

I  have  no  proof  that  they  actually  enjoy  them,  I  would  say  it 
is  simply  preposterous  to  doubt  it.  No  people,  not  even  our 
own,  and  God  knoM^s  they  are  slow  enough  and  gullible 
enough,  with  such  a  plain  and  explicit  Declaration  of  Funda- 
mental Rights,  would  submit  to  being  deprived  of  them  or 
satisfied  with  anything  less  than  the  full  enjoyment  of  them. 
They  would  fight  first." 

Piute.  "I  cannot  agree  with  you.  I  have  had  some  ex- 
perience in  political  conventions  that  got  up  platforms  with 
high  sounding  principles,  and  while  I  was  always  perfectly 
sincere  in  the  matter  myself,  I  regret  to  say  that  others,  seeing 
how  satisfied  and  contented  the  people  always  were  with  mere 
pledges  and  declarations  of  great  principles,  took  care  to  keep 
the  principles  securely  chained  to  the  platform  and  never  let 
them  go  any  further,  while  they  proceeded  to  possess  for 
themselves  the  substance  for  which  the  principles  stood,  just 
as  they  had  always  done  before;  and  as  I  believe  human 
nature  to  be  the  same  everywhere,  I  cannot  think  the  eulogy 
you  have  delivered  here  on  the  people  of  the  State  of  Califor- 
nia, United  States  of  America,  Western  Hemisphere,  Planet 
Earth,  altogether  merited. 

Now.  as  discussion  is  useless  without  further  proof,  I  pro- 
pose that  you  act  as  a  committee  of  one  representing  your 
Class  and  I  will  act  as  a  committee  of  one  representing  mine 
and  we  will  go  and  investigate  for  ourselves  how  much  of 
the  rights  the  people  of  California  actually  enjoy,  which  you 
have  so  confidently  boasted  they  do  enjoy.  If  you  find  things 
as  you  have  pictured  them,  I  will  not  only  apologize  for  this 
interruption  but  will  heartly  join  you  in  the  so-called  re- 
forms you  advocate,  so  long  as  I  remain  on  the  IMars. " 

Soci.  "That  is  impossible.  We  have  no  money  for  ex- 
penses.    You  have  it  all." 

Piute.  "Never  mind  the  expenses  then.  I'll  stand  for 
them  and  we'll  go  the  way  this  imported  emissary  and  agitator 
got  here  with  that  incendiary  document  to  disturb  the  peace 
of  Mars  with  its  new  notions.     Is  it  agreed? 

Soci.     "Agreed." 

The  Chair.  "It  is  to  be  hoped  the  committee  will  be  as 
expeditious  as  possible  and  report  at  the  earliest  day.  The 
audience  is  dismissed." 

Just  as  the  Sun  was  quitting  the  Heads  at  the  Golden  Gate 
and  dropping  behind  the  Pacific,  on  the  evening  of  August  19, 
1903,  the  gentlemen  of  the  committee  from  Mars,  accompanied 
by  their  visitor  and  guide,  the  "agitator"  from  California, 
entered  the  Earth's  atmosphere  and  were  swiftly  but  silently 
approaching  San  Francisco;  the  Socialist  smiling  with  con- 
fidence, the  Piute  looking  serious  and  solemn  as  if  filled  with 
doubt. 

In  a  few  moments,  and  just  before  the  electric  lights  oc  the 
city  were  turned  on,  the  trio  touched  ground  on  New  Mont- 
gomery street  near  the  entrance  to  the  Palace  Hotel.  "This 
way  gentlemen,"  said  their  guide,  the  agitator,  Avbo  conduct- 


THE  WAY   OUT.  89 

ed  them  to  the  spacious  court  of  the  hotel  Avhere  the  stranger 
might  imagine  himself  in  the  Tropics,  because  of  the  large 
palms  and  other  vegetation  that  surrounded  him  on  every  side. 

Mayor  Schmitz  happening  to  be  present,  was  immediately 
presented  to  "A  committee  from  the  planet  Mars,  your 
Honor. ' ' 

"Gentlemen  of  the  committee  from  the  planet  Mars,  it  is 
the  Supreme  pleasure  of  my  life  to  greet  you,  and  as  the  chief 
executive  of  this  great  city  of  San  P"'rancisco,  I  welcome  you 
in  the  name  and  on  the  behalf  of  its  contented  and  happy  peo- 
ple, (at  these  words  the  eyes  of  the  Socialist  instantly  spark- 
led with  delight.  The  Piute  looked  sober.)  So  long  as  it 
pleases  you  to  honor  us  with  your  presence,  you  are  cordially 
invited  to  consider  yourselves  the  city's  special  guests.  T  beg 
that  you  will  also  consider  that  I  shall  esteem  it  a  distin- 
guished privilege  to  be  permitted  to  render  you  every  service 
in  my  power  in  connection  with  the  object  of  your  visit.  I 
will  have  the  clerk  assign  you  apartments  pud  at  eicht  p.  ni. 
shall  expect  you  to  dine  with  me,  after  which  I  will  be  yjleased 
to  personally  escort  you  through  a  portion  of  our  city." 

Soei.  "Mr.  Mayor,  this  mark  of  respect  you  have  so  kindly 
shown  us  is  very  gratifying,  and  harmonizes  perfectly  Avith 
my  conceptions  of  the  character  of  the  people  who  enjoy,  as 
yours  do,  the  inestimable  blessings  guaranteed  by  vour  Dec- 
laration of  Richts.  (Declaration  of  Rights!,  his  Honor 
thought,  what  the  devil  can  he  be  driving  at?)  At  the  same 
time  I  have  to  admit  that,  having  lived  under  an  economic 
system  so  vastly  different  from  yours,  and  where  selfishness 
is  the  motive  that  determines  the  actions  of  every  niMu,  it  is 
hard  to  realize  the  fact  that  so  warm  a  welcome  is  really  ours. 
I  thank  you  very  much  and  assure  you  we  greatly  appreciate 
your  kindness  and  hospitality." 

The  Mayor,  as  he  extended  his  hand  without  speaking, 
wondered  to  himself  how  their  economic  system  could  differ 
so  much  from  our  own  if  selfishness  played  such  a  prominent 
part  in  it.  Yet  it  was  evident  from  the  pleased  expression  on 
the  fellow's  face  that  in  some  way  it  must,  although  he  could 
not  account  for  the  gloomy  countenance  of  his  companion,  the 
Piute,  and  did  not  feel  at  liberty,  so  soon,  to  be  inquisitive. 
By  shaking  he  only  meant  to  say,  "well,  goodbye  for  the 
present,"  but  the  Socialist,  in  fervently  grabbing  it,  interpret- 
ed the  Mayor's  hand  shake  to  mean  "by-Jove,  that's  so!" 
To  what  he  himself  had  just  said,  and  fancied  he  had  found  a 
"Comrade."  The  Piute  only  hioked  on  coldly  and  listened. 
There  was  no  feeling  in  his  shake.  The  facts  seemed  to  be 
multiplying  against  him.  He  said  nothing,  and  as  they  turn- 
ed to  go  to  their  rooms  and  he  noticed  so  many  finely  dressed 
men  and  women  lounging  about  and  promenading  the  spacious 
and  richly  furnished  and  decorated  halls  and  corridors,  dis- 
pair  and  dispondency  about  got  away  with  him,  "what  the 
damned  Socialist  said  up  on  the  Mars  might  be  true  after  all" 
he  thought. 


90  THE  WAY  OUT. 

The  sight  of  the  same  things,  however,  made  the  Socialist 
inwardly  exult  with  triumph,  while  the  sumptuous  luxuriance 
of  their  rooms  with  every  modern  convenience  to  contribute 
to  comfort,  only  increased  the  dismay  of  the  one  and  the  joy 
of  the  other. 

After  dinner  and  lighting  cigai^  the  Mayor  said:  "Now 
gentlemen,  I  shall  be  delighted  to  go  out  a  little  with  you. 

This  is  about  as  favorable  an  hour  to  take  in  a  portion  of 
the  sights  on  Market  street  as  we  could  choose  and  an  Auto 
awaits  your  pleasure. ' '  They  were  both  ready.  The  Socialist, 
with  head  and  spine  erect,  almost  strutted  as  he  walked  be- 
side his  Honor,  the  personification  of  confidence  and  victory, 
while  the  Piute  looked  the  opposite,  worried  and  dejected. 

Emerging  from  the  hotel  at  the  Market  street  entrance, 
the  rays  of  thousands  of  electric  lights  poured  into  their 
astonished  faces,  and  for  a  few  moments  their  feet  refused  to 
move.  They  stood  there  in  speechless  amazement  at  the  be- 
wildering sight.  Every  building  in  every  direction  as  far  as 
they  could  see,  and  from  pavement  to  cornice,  was  draped  in 
lines  of  brilliant  lights,  while  the  street,  some  thirty  feet  from 
the  ground,  was  canopied  by  what  seemed  like  millions  of 
twinkling  stars  that  stretched  away  in  the  distance. 
Finally  rising  in  the  air  and  illuminating  against  the  night 
A  mighty  building,  with  central  tower,  in  a  blaze  of  mellow 
light. 

It  looked  to  them  as  if  a  section  of  the  Milky  Way  might 
have  been  let  down  for  the  special  accommodation  and  pleas- 
ure of  this  favored  people. 

''Wonderful!  Wonderful!"  both  finally  recovered  enough 
to  exclaim.  "Ah,  my  God,  Piute,"  said  the  socialist,  "I  ex- 
pected to  find  here  all  I  pictured  to  the  people  in  my  speech 
on  the  Mars,  but  I  never,  nevei'  thought  of  seeing  anything 
half  so  grand  as  this." 

The  Mayor,  who  had  been  noting  their  amazement,  now 
gently  nudged  them,  when  they  faced  about  and  again  burst 
into  exclamations  of  surprise  and  admiration  as  their  eyes 
caught  sight  of  the  great  white,  dazzling  arch  of  "Welcome" 
that  spanned  Market  street  at  Third,  and  the  sea  of  lights 
beyond.  "Piute!  Piute!"  shouted  the  socialist  waving  his 
hand  to  include  all  they  saw — "these  are  some  of  the  fruits 
of  industrial  freedom!" 

"When  it  pleases  jon  gentlemen,"  said  the  Mayor,  "kindly 
take  seats  in  the  auto  and  we'll  take  a  spin  beneath  this 
section  of  the  Milky-way,"  (pointing  towards  the  Ferry 
depot.) 

It  was  hard  for  the  committee  from  INIars  to  take  their  eyes 
from  the  glittering  show  long  enough  to  comply  with  the 
Mayor's  invitation,  but  once  seated  they  found  their  oppor- 
tunities to  see,  considerably  improved  and  became  so  absorbed 
that  they  neither  heard  nor  saw  other  things  that  would  have 
forcefully  reminded  the  Socialist  of  the  miserable  conditions 
he  had  complained  of  on  the  Mars. 


THE  WAY   OUT.  91 

The  horseless,  upholstered  carriage  that  bore  them  swiftly 
clown  Market  street,  necessarily  attracted  a  little  of  their  at- 
tention and  curiosity,  but  the  big  Union  Ferry  Depot  that 
loomed  up  in  glowing  radiance  straight  ahead  w^as  their  chief 
wonder.  Alighting  just  as  a  great  throng  of  people  poured 
through  the  Ferry  building  from  the  Oakland  boat,  the  com- 
mittee recovered  enough  from  its  surprises  to  begin  to  think 
of  its  mission  on  Earth  and  ask  a  question  or  two. 

"This  is  a  very  large  and  beautiful  structure,"  said  Piute, 
and  then  timidly,  as  a  feeler,  "may  I  ask  who  is  rich  enough 
to  own  it?" 

"This?"  said  the  Mayor,  "Why,  this  building  is  the  Un- 
ion Ferry  Depot  and  is  owned  by  all  the  People." 

At  this  answer  the  Socialist  punched  Piute  in  the  ribs  with 
his  elbow  and  laughed  right  out.  (Another  clinching  proof 
that  I  was  right,  he  thought.)     But  Piute  never  even  smiled. 

The  Mayor,  being  entirely  ignorant  of  the  object  of  their 
visit,  was  unable  to  understand  why  his  answer  made  the 
Socialist  feel  so  pleased  or  the  Piute  so  apparantly  displeased. 

The  crowds  of  people  coming  and  going  made  such  a  clatter 
on  the  cement  floor,  and  there  was  such  a  constant  buzz  of 
voices,  that  it  was  very  difficult  to  hear  ordinary  conversa- 
tion, so  the  committee  from  Mars  only  walked  about,  guided 
by  his  Honor,  looking  at  the  arrangement  of  the  building  and 
listening  to  such  explanations  as  his  Honor  found  opportunity 
to  make. 

There  was  however  a  further  reason  on  the  part  of  the 
gentlemen  from  IMars  for  not  pressing  questions.  •  Neither 
felt  very  sure  of  his  position,  yet,  and  both  had  a  lurking 
dread  of  ridicule  should  his  Honor  or  the  World  know  of  the 
differences  that  caused  their  inter-planetary  journey. 

Notwithstanding  their  deep  absorption  in  the  electrical  dis- 
play, some  few  things  had  occurred  within  their  sight  and 
hearing  or  in  sight  or  hearing  of  one  or  the  other  of  :Uem. 
to  both  encourage  and  discourage  each  in  his  expectations. 
For  instance,  the  Piute  thought  he  heard  one  man  say  to 
•  another,  "damn  you,  I  tell  you  that  is  my  property,  I  paid 
for  it  and  I  will  have  it!"  and  he  could  not  help  thinking 
at  the  time.  "If  I  heard  that  fellow  right  it  sounded  just 
as  if  I  was  at  home." 

He  had  no  idea  though  whether  by  "property"  the  fellow 
meant  land,  machinery,  tools  of  production,  or  just  his  own 
personal  effects,  so  the  only  point  he  could  see  in  what  the 
man  said  that  favored  his  view  was  that,  "property"  in 
something  appeared  to  be  recognized  as  capable  of  private 
OAvnership,  and  he  hoped  to  find  that  everything  was,  the  same 
as  on  the  INIars. 

At  an  other  time  both  heard  two  men  talking  very  earnestly, 
and  distinctly  heard  one  of  them  say,  "the  people  are  fools 
if  they  do  not  vote  to  own  and  operate  the  Geary  street  road ; 
the  revenues  will  be  ample  to  pay  all  the  operating  expenses, 
give  shorter  hours  and  better  pay  to  the  men,  keep  the  road 


92  THE  WAY  OUT. 

and  equipment,  in  a  far  better  condition  than  it  is  now.  lay  by 
a  sinking:  fund  sufficient  to  discharge  at  maturity  the  bonds 
as  they  fall  due  and  leave  a  large  surplus  to  <zo  into  the  peo- 
ple's treasury,  even  if  fares  are  reduced,  -which  they  certainly 
would  be."  And  the  Socialist  and  Piute  looked  at  each  other 
as  much  as  to  say,  ''did  you  hear  that?''  The  former  was 
sure  i€  corroborated  his  views  because  the  people  were  evi- 
dently considering  whether  to  own  and  operate  the  road, 
give  the  men  shorter  hours  and  better  pay  and  have  a  surplus 
to  go  into  the  public  treasury.  He  could  not  understand 
from  what  little  he  heard,  whether  private  enterprise  owned 
the  road  now  or  whether  they  were  talking  of  building  a 
new  road,  but  if  the  road  was  already  built  and  owned  by 
individuals,  he  supposed  it  was  because,  in  the  transition 
from  private  to  public  ownership  of  all  things,  which  the 
Declaration  of  Rights  clearly  contemplated,  the  process  was 
gradual,  and  this  was  one  of  the  things  they  had  .iust  come 
to  and  the  question  to  be  voted  on  was  whether  the  people 
were  ready  at  this  time  to  take  it  over.  But  the  Piute's  ears 
were  quick  to  catch  the  word  "bonds"  spoken,  which  was 
such  a  familiar  word  in  business  and  banking  circles  on  the 
Mars  that  he  was  quite  sure  there  must  be  some  sort  of  a 
capitalistic  system  doM-n  here  that  resembled  theirs,  notvv'ith- 
standing  their  boasted  Constitutional  Declaration  as  to  the 
Right  of  "All  Men." 

On  the  way  back  up  town  they  were  able  to  notice  little 
else  besides  the  great  display  of  iDeautiful  lights  which  from 
this  new  point  of  view,  presented  another  grand  and  impres- 
sive sight.  The  clanging  of  cable  car  gongs  at  the  Ferry  liow- 
ever  atracted  their  attention  to  another  kind  of  wagon  not 
drawn  by  horses  in  which  every  body  who  wished,  seemed  to 
ride  getting  on  and  off  .at  pleasure.  Neither  could  hear  the 
conductor  call  out  ' '  fares,  please  ! ' ' 

So  the  Socialist  concluded,  as  the  Declaration  of  Rights 
was  so  specific  in  regard  to  all  having  the  right  "to  acquire 
and  possess  property,"  it  would  naturally  follow  and  was 
highly  probable  that  this  peculiar  conveyance  belonged  to  the 
people  and  w-as  a  free-to-all  contrivance  such  as  an  en- 
lightened and  progressive  community  would  inevitably  de- 
mand and  have  for  their  own  convenience  and  pleasure.  It 
could  not  be  possible,  he  thought,  that  they  would  tolerate  a 
great  public  necessity,  which  this  manifestly  was,  to  belong 
to  any  individual  or  company,  that  was  too  preposterous. 

So,  so  far  as  this  matter  was  concerned,  he  decided  that 
what  should  be,  is,  and  no  Piute  had  his  hand  in  the  people's 
pockets  fishing  out  the  money  necessary  to  run  the  road  and 
a  great  deal  more  besides, 

Piute  had  no  idea  as  to  what  the  facts  were  as  to  owner- 
ship nor  did  he  speculate  about  that;  he  was  meditating  on 
a  different  proposition,  and  rubbed  his  hands  gleefully,  in 
fact  absent  mindedly,  figuring  out  what  a  mint  of  money  he 


THE  AA'AY  OUT.  93 

could  make  out  of  it  if  he  only  had  a  monopoly  on  such  a  rig 
as  that,  lip  on  the  ]\[ars. 

The  thought  of  the  possihility  of  such  a  thing  so  com- 
pletely possessed  him  that  after  going  a  block  or  two  up 
Market  street  he  forgot  all  about  everything  around  him  until 
the  City  Hall,  enveloped  in  a  blaze  of  light,  came  suddenly 
in  full  view  and  the  Socialist,  unable  to  control  his  legs  or 
nerves,  sprang  to  his  feet  giving  vent  to  his  amazement  and 
delight  at  the  dazzling  splendor  of  the  huge  pyramid  of  fire 
before  him  with  "Great  God,  Piute,  look!"  and  this  awoke 
him  from  his  dream  of  wealth. 

"Gentlemen,"  said  his  Honor,  "this  is  our  City  Hall,  and 
to-morrow  I  shall  hope  for  the  distinguished  privilege  of 
showing  you  through  it  and  explaining  1o  the  best  of  ray 
unpretentious  abilit}^  our  unexcelled  system  of  conducting 
the  various  departments  of  the  municipal  government." 

At  last,  without  being  obliged,  so  far,  to  announce  to  any- 
one the  object  of  their  mission  on  Earth,  the  opportunity 
seemed  at  hand  to  obtain  the  information  they  wanted,  so 
both  at  once  gave  assurances  of  their  great  pleasure  in  ac- 
cepting the  Mayor's  "obliging  invitation,"  as  the  auto 
wheeled  about  and  sped  towards  the  Palace. 

On  the  way,  each  took  more  or  less  notice  of  the  great 
orderly  crowds  of  people  that  filled  the  broad  sidewalks  and 
overflowed  out  on  to  the  wide  clean-swept  asphalt  street,  a 
quarter  or  more  of  its  width  on  either  side,  all  going  or  com- 
ing and  nicely  dressed  and  apparently  happy.  Not  a  single 
beggar  was  seen  nor  any  sign  of  disturbance,  a  common 
spectacle  on  the  Mars. 

Once  in  their  rooms,  each  endeavored,  from  all  he  had  seen 
in  the  course  of  the  evening,  to  anticipate  the  truth  as  to  the 
effect  of  the  Declaration  of  Rights  they  had  read,  upon  the 
social  and  industrial  status  of  the  people,  yet  each  was  anxious 
to  turn  every  incident  and  circumstance  he  had  met  with, 
that  he  possibly  could,  to  confirm  his  preconceived  opinion 
that  the  Declaration  of  Rights  referred  to  was  put  in  practice 
according  to  the  full  scope  of  its  meaning,  as  the  Socialist  had 
contended,  or  that  no  practical  attention  was  paid  to  it  as  was 
suspected  by  the  Piute. 

Piute  soliloquized  as  follows:  I  have  to  confess  to  my- 
self that  I  feel  a  little  bit  shaky  as  to  my  position  so  far  as 
concerns  some  things  I've  seen  to-night.  There  is  that  mar- 
velous and  monstrous  electrical  display,  for  instance,  the  cost 
of  it  must  be  too  crreat  for  any  individual  or  company  to 
undertake,  besides,  it  must  require  an  army  of  men  to  make  it 
and  look  after  it,  more  in  fact  than  I  can  conceive  it  possible 
to  be  in  the  employ  of  any  private  concern.  But  if  it  is 
really  so  that  private  capital  does  it,  there  must  be  some 
giants  of  finance  here,  away  ahead  of  any  on  the  Mars,  and 
besides,  they  must  enjoy  some  special  privilege,  power  or  pull 
(ir  some  methods  unknown  to  us  and  that  we  are  not  up  to, 
be  able  to  get  the  job    at   all,  for   surely  there  is  a  lot  of 


94  THE  WAY  OUT. 

money  in  it  for  profit  because  it 's  a  big  deal,  and  the  rule  with 
us  is.  the  bigger  the  deal  the  bigger  the  steal,  I  believe  they 
call  it ' '  graft ' '  down  here  or  ' '  rake-off, ' '  and  these  fellows,  no 
doubt,  can  discount  us  in  that  line  if  they  are  shrewd  enough 
to  manage  to  get  such  a  contract. 

The  people  I've  seen  so  far,  look  too  confounded  smart  to 
let  any  contractor  get  away  with  a  thing  of  that  magnitude 
when  they  have  to  foot  the  bills  and  could  have  done  it  them- 
selves as  well  as  not.  On  the  Mars,  we  think  we  are  capable 
of  working  the  people  to  give  us  contracts  to  do  some  pretty 
big  things  which  they  might  do  themselves  and  save  our  pro- 
fits. In  fact  they  often  grant  us  a  right  for  a  great  many 
years  to  do  things  to  the  exclusion  of  their  own  right  even, 
and  pass  laws  and  ordinances  that  give  us  a  monopoly,  and 
then  you  ought  to  see  the  people  rustle  for  nickles  to  pitch 
at  us  daily  as  long  as  they  live,  and  how  they  seem  to  delight 
in  doing  it.  But  then  it  is  perfectly  natural,  they  were  born 
to  think  they  must  and  that  we  were  born  to  take  them,  so 
of  course  we  do  it.  There  is  nothing  else  ^ye  could  do.  They 
want  it  that  way,  will  have  it  that  way.  and  wouldn't  be 
happy  if  it  wasn't,  and  of  course  we  can  afford  to  oblige 
them  that  much.  It  is  our  idea  that  when  we  contribute  to 
the  happiness  of  the  people  we  are  doing  good,  even  if  they 
do  pay  for  it. 

I  don't  believe  that  would  work  here  though,  and  as  to  get- 
ting a  contract  to  do  all  the  lighting  I've  seen  to-night,  none 
of  us  would  dream  of  it,  even  if  we  had  the  money  to  put  in 
a  plant  big  enough  and  knew  how.  No,  our  people  are  easy 
because  they  don't  know  any  better,  but  dumb  as  they  are, 
that  would  be  beyond  the  limit.  They  would  say:  "guess 
if  you  can,  we  can."  and  they  would,  too. 

So  it  must  be  that  every  one  of  those  thousands  we  saw  on 
the  street  to-night  admiring  the  incomparable  display  of 
lights,  were  merely  walking  about  and  admiring  their  own 
property  and  work,  something  they  very  likely  take  great 
pleasure  in  doing  whenever  the  weather  permits. 

And  so  the  Piute  went  off  to  sleep  with  grave  doubts  as  to 
whether  his  statement  on  the  Mars  that  ''human  nature  was 
the  same  everywhere,"  was  true  or  not.  It  began  to  look  to 
him  as  though  the  people  of  the  State  of  California,  United 
States  of  America,  Western  Hemisphere,  Planet  Earth,  must 
be  an  exception,  and  the  Socialist  was  probably  right  as  to  the 
Freedom,  Security  and  Happiness  they  enjoy  under  and  by 
virtue  of  that  Declaration  of  Rights  in  their  Constitution. 

He  had  been  unable  to  recall  anything  he  had  seen  or  heard 
so  far  to  corroborate  his  expectations  except  the  word 
"bonds"  in  one  conversation  and  the  words  "property  is 
mine"  in  another,  while  he  had  seen  and  heard  much  that 
seemed  against  him. 

The  Socialist  once  alone  in  his  room,  on  the  other  hand 
drew  much  hope  from  what  he  had  seen  and  heard  that  the 
people  enjoyed  all  the  rights  he  had  claimed  for  them  and 


THE  WAY  OUT.  95 

that  it  was  due  entirely  to  that  section  of  their  Constitution 
which  declared  their  Rights. 

For  instance,  he  had  noticed  a  great  gathering  of  elderly 
gentlemen  and  ladies  about  the  hotel  greeting  each  other  with 
such  hearty  good  will  and  cordiality,  it  was  impossible  for  him 
to  account  for  it  on  any  other  theory  than  that  they  were  liv- 
ing in  a  state  of  Security  which  would  naturally  and  in- 
evitably result  from  their  Declaration  of  Rights,  if  it  was 
practically  carried  out  according  to  its  true  intent  and 
meaning.  At  all  events,  he  had  never  seen  on  the  Mars, 
where  he  knew  there  was  no  Declaration  of  Rights,  any  such 
comradeship,  apparent  good  fellowship  and  brotherly  solici- 
tude among  the  people  for  each  other's  good  health  and  pros- 
perity, so  he  felt  sure  these  happy  folks  could  not  be  living  in 
a  state  of  constant  strife,  each  trying  to  get  some  advantage 
of  the  other,  as  they  do  on  the  Mars. 

(It  was  National  Encampment  week  of  the  G.  A.  R.  and 
many  of  the  Veterans  of  the  Civil  War,  from  all  parts  of  the 
country  were  quartered  at  the  hotel,  which  was  also  head- 
quarters for  several  states,  and  of  course  there  was  much  hand 
shaking  from  those  who  had  not  met  before  for  years,  but  the 
Socialist  knew  nothing  about  that. 

The  grandeur  of  the  street  lights,  that  turned  night  into 
day,  and  the  great  crowds  of  nicely  dressed  people  he  had 
seen  admiring  them  was,  to  his  mind,  convincing  proof  that 
they  owned  them  as  they  should  do  under  their  Declaration 
of  Rights,  so,  he  too,  turned  in,  but  somehow  could  not  sleep. 

After  tossing  about  a  while  an  idea  came  to  him  that  would 
not  go  away.  He  should  dress,  make  a  copy  of  the  Declara- 
tion of  Rights,  omitting  the  number  of  the  section  and 
article,  and  go  down  and  show  it  to  whoever  he  happened 
to  meet  and  ask  a  question  or  two.  Surely,  he  thought, 
every  man,  woman  and  child  will  be  ag  familiar  with  that 
Declaration  as  they  are  with  their  a,  b,  c's,  for  so  much  de- 
pends upon  it.  It  is  the  great  charter  of  their  Liberties,  the 
thing  that  safeguards  every  one's  Life,  Security  and  Hap- 
piness and  must  be  such  a  precious  inheritance  that  it  is  drill- 
ed into  the  mind  of  every  child  from  infancy,  and  the  hum- 
blest citizen  must  be  familiar  with  it. 

The  first  person  he  met  was  the  clerk  in  the  office.  ''Here 
is  something  that  was  handed  to  me  and  I  would  thank  you 
to  teU  me  what  it  means,"  he  said.  (Clerk  reads  and  frank- 
ly says)  "I  am  sorry  sir,  but  I  don't  know.  I'm  from  Mis- 
souri and  not  long  in  the  city." 

Missouri,  Missouri,  and  he  don't  know?  thought  the  Social- 
ist. I  wonder  if  that's  another  world,  I  don't  remember  ever 
hearing  of  it. 

Clerk.  "Here's  the  proprietor,  he'll  tell  you."  "This 
gentleman  wishes  you  to  explain  this." 

(Prop,  reads.)  "Really  sir,  it  is  a  long  time  since  I  look- 
ed inside  of  a  history  and  I  forget,  I  think  though  it  is  a  part 


96  THE  WAY  OUT. 

of  the  Declaration  of  Independance.  The  Reverend  Doctor  S., 
here,  is  probably  familiar  with  it,  he  will  tell  yon. 

(Rev.  S.  reads  it.)  "Yes  that's  a  quotation  from  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  isn't  it  Mr.  B?  Here,  please 
look  at  this,  you're  a  lawyer  and  something  of  a  politician 
too.  You've  been  a  member  of  the  legislature  two  terms, 
you  ought  to  be  posted." 

Lawyer  B.  "AA^ell,  I  suppose  I  have  read  that  a  hundred 
times,  still  I  am  not  sure  if  it  is  a  part  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  or  a  part  of  the  Constitution  of  California. 
You  see  they  are  a  good  deal  alike  in  this  respect  but  it  is 
so  seldom  we  have  occasion  now  days  to  refer  to  this  particu- 
lar clause  in  either  our  state  Constitution  or  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  that  I  am  a  little  rusty  in  regard  to  it.  I 
have  practiced  law  in  the  state  and  Federal  courts  for  the 
last  thirty  years  but  I  never  Imew  of  a  case  that  called  out  a 
discussion  of  the  rights  referred  to.  Wliat  is  your  experience 
on  he  bench,  Judge  (addressing  Judge  M.  who  had  just  en- 
tered.) We  were  just  talking  about  this:  (reads  aloud) 
'All  men  are  by  nature  free  and  independent  and  have  cer- 
tain inalienable  rights,  among  which  are  those  of  enjoying 
and  defending  life  and  liberty,  acquiring,  possessing  and 
protecting  property;  and  pursuing  and  obtaining  safety  and 
happiness.'  Is  that  the  language  of  the  Declaration  of  In- 
dependence or  of  the  Constitution  of  the  State,  and  is  it 
often  cited  or  called  in  question  in  your  court?" 

Judge.  "To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  that  is  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Constitution  of  this  State,  but  I  do  not  remem- 
ber what  section  it  is,  or  in  which  Article  it  is  found.  No, 
I  do  not  recall  a.  case  before  me  where  it  was  ever  cited  or 
where  it  was  urged  tha  the  decision  of  the  case  turned  or  de- 
pended upon  a  construction  of  it.  Those  rights  are  funda- 
mental 3'ou  know  and  no  lawyer  ever  thinks  of  questioning 
them  nor  has  any  court,  so  far  as  I  know,  been  called  upon 
to  construe  them.  They  need  no  interpretation.  The  rights 
are  conceded  so  universally  in  this  country  that  you  might 
say  they  are  'shelved'  that  is,  laid  away,  packed  up  and  lock- 
ed up  in  a  safety  deposit  box  as  it  were  and  taken  out  only 
on  special  occasions,  as  on  the  Fourth  of  July,  read  to  those 
assembled  and  laid  away  again  and  not  thought  of  until  the 
next  Fourth." 

The  Socialist  was  bothered.  He  did  not  know  what  to  make 
of  his  interview\  He  was  disappointed.  He  had  supposed 
that  even  school  children  knew  all  about  the  Declaration  of 
Rights  and  could  tell  him,  and  here  he  had  found  that  busi- 
ness men  and  preachers  did  not  know  it  when  they  saw  it; 
even  lawyere  and  legislators  were  "rusty"  in  their  memory 
of  it  and  judges  were  not  familiar  enough  with  it  to  say  in 
which  Section  or  Article  of  the  Constitution  it  could  be  found. 
So  the  only  thing  that  encouraged  him  at  all  was,  what  the 
judge  said' about  the  Rights  being  "universally  conceded." 
This  he  took  to  mean  that  they  were  also  universally  enjoyed 


THE  WAY   OUT.  97 

and  had  been  foi^  so  long  a  time,  that  the  Declaration  had  got 
to  be  an  old  story  and  it  was  no  longer  necessary  for  the  peo- 
ple, the  preachers,  the  lawyers  or  the  courts  to  refer  to  it, 
or  remember  it. 

This  reflection  was  somewhat  comforting  but  not  at  all  con- 
vincing to  him,  however  he  would  probably  get  at  the  facts 
to-morrow  and  went  back  to  bed. 

Before  four  o'clock  next  morning  he  was  aroused  by  loud 
calls  and  cries  from  the  street  that  sounded  like  children  ap- 
pealing for  help  and  bounded  out,  hurriedly  dressed,  and  was 
soon  at  the  front  door.  Here  half  a  dozen  litle  boys,  some 
looking  like  mere  babies,  rushed  at  him  and  nearly  climbed 
over  him,  each  sticking  a  paper  in  his  face  with,  "Paper, 
Mister?"  then  dashed  away  shouting  at  the  top  of  their 
shrill  voices,  "Morning  papers,  all  about — "  and  he  thought: 
"My  God,  what  does  it  mean!  Here  it  is  hardly  day-light 
and  these  poor  little  tots  are  out  selling  papers  when  every  one 
of  them  should  be  in  bed  asleep.  I  don't  understand  it.  Sure- 
ly these  children  cannot  be  out  here  at  this  hour  because 
they  prefer  it  to  home  and  a  warm  bed,  nor  can  it  be  pos- 
sible that  any  great  public  necessity  or  emergency  demands 
such  a  sacrifice  of  sleep  and  rest  from  such  youngsters — 
"Hey,  there!  my  little  man,  (boy  runs  to  him  thinking  he 
wants  a  paper)  tell  me  avIiv  it  is  necessary  for  you  to  be  out 
so—" 

"Want  a  paper!" 

"I  can't  read  it,  tell  me  why — " 

"Oh,  gwan!  what  yer  giv'n  us? — Morning  paper!"  and 
he  ran  away  leaving  the  Socialist  half  of  the  committee  from 
Mars  staring  at  him,  his  notions  of  Rights  under  the  Declara- 
tion taking  a  tumble  towards  zero,  as  he  shoved  his  hands  in 
his  pants  pockets  and  started  aimlessly  in  the  direction  of 
Third  street  trying  to  think,  but  it  was  no  use. 

The  clanging  gongs  of  street  cars,  puffing  of  automobiles, 
rumbling  of  heavy  drays,  high  keyed  screaming  of  newsboys 
and  other  venders  made  a  bewildering  racket,  while  crowds 
of  men  and  women  from  youth  to  old  age,  each  with  a  small 
basket,  bucket  or  grip  in  hand  jostled  him  as  they  hurried 
along  in  both  directions  as  if  pushed  by  some  urgent  neces- 
sity to  get  somewhere  without  the  least  delay.  "What, 
thought  he,  can  be  the  industrial  conditions  here  that  cause 
all  these  people  to  be  in  such  a  rush  at  this  early  hour?  Is 
it  an  emergency,  or  the  regular  thing?  Are  they  bent  on 
pleasure  or  work?  Is  it  their  day  off,  or  day  on?  It  must 
be  one  or  the  other  for  no  people  could  stand  it  to  maintain 
such  a  speed  every  day.  The  buckets  and  baskets  re- 
mind me  of  our  dinner-pail  brigade  on  Mars  except 
as  to  the  early  hours  and  hustling  movement.  Our 
workers  do  not  get  out  so  early  nor  are  they  in  such  a 
hurry."  Just  then  he  came  to  a  group  of  elderly  men  whose 
breasts  were  decorated  with  ribbons  and  badges,  talking  of 
a  monster  parade  yesterday.     "Forty  thousand  of    the  old 


98  THE  WAY  OUT. 

boys  in  line,"  said  one.  ''The  music  made  me  young  again," 
said  another.  "Thirty  thousand  school  children  reviewed 
us,"  said  a  third.  "T'was  the  most  glorious  re-union  and 
reception  the  Grand  Army  ever  had,"  said  a  fourth.  Ah, 
I  see,  thought  the  Socialist,  and  his  hopes  began  to  repive; 
this  is  a  holiday  week  and  accounts  for  all  this  rash  and 
racket,  and  he  turned  to  go  and  get  Piute  out.  He  found 
him  just  coming  from  his  room  as  he  got  there. 

Piute.  "Hello,  Soci,  aren't  you  out  early,  haven't  been 
out  all  night  have  you?  You  mustn't  get  gay  'cause  your 
wife's  away." 

Soci.  "No,  Piute,  I've  been  out  making  a  few  observa- 
tions." 

Piute.  "But  you  don't  look  well,  anything  gone  wrong ?"^ 
Soci.  "I'll  tell  you,  Piute,  when  I  first  went  out  this 
morning  I  ran  up  against  conditions  that  reminded  me  so 
much  of  Mars,  for  awhile  I  imagined  myself  at  home,  and  al- 
most weakened.  Perhaps  my  nerves  still  betray  the  shock 
of  it,  but  W'hen  I  learned  this  is  a  holiday  week  here  in  honor 
of  some  old  soldiers,  I  concluded  the  conditions  that  depressed 
me  were  only  temporary  and  due  to  their  festivities,  so  I  felt 
better." 

Piute.  "Oh,  you  are  always  bothering  about  conditions! 
What  is  wanted  is  men.  Give  us  men  and  they'll  make  the 
conditions.  Come  let's  go  to  breakfast  and  be  ready  for  the 
Mayor.    You'll  be  wiser  before  night." 

Soci.  "And  so  Avill  you.  But  do  you  think  conditions  have 
nothing  to  do  with  making  men?" 

Piute.     "Conditions  nothing!  Smart  men  do  it  all." 
Soci.     "Yes,   for  themselves." 

Piute.  "Certainly,  and  'aint  that  right?  Who  else  would 
they  do  it  for  "1     If  we  help  ourselves,  don 't  we  help  you  ? ' ' 

Soci.  "To  be  sure,  every  time  we  get  seventeen  cents,  you 
take  eighty-three.  That's  the  way  you  'smart  men'  make 
conditions.  You  always  make  them  to  keep  other  men  do\\Ti 
and  under.  You  are  only  half  right  when  you  say  men  make 
conditions;  they  do,  but  it  is  also  true  that  conditions  make 
men ;  and  when  the  conditions  are  right  none  of  those  things 
can  happen.  All  will  be  on  top  and  nobody  down  or  under, 
because  it  will  neither  be  possible  or  profitable  for  one  to 
wrong  another.  All  will  in  fact,  enjoy  Life,  Liberty  and 
Happiness.  Conditions  that  make  men,  will  permit  nothing 
less  than  this  to  be  the  inalienable  inheritance  of  all ! " 

Piute.  "Oh,  you  fellows  would  have  a  kick  coming,  any- 
way!" 

Soci.  "You  may  be  sure  we  will  as  long  as  there  is  a 
plutocratic  kink  left  in  the  industrial  tangle  to  be  kicked 
out." 

Mayor.    "Good  morning,  gentlemen,  if  you  are  ready  and 
it  will  be  agreeable,  we  will  take  a  car  and  avoid  the  crowd." 
Both.     "Certainly,  your  Honor,  we  shall  be  delighted. 


THE  WAY   OUT.  99 

Conductor.  "Fares  please?"  and  the  committee  saw  his 
Honor  hand  him  fifteen  cents. 

(Piute  thought.  I  wonder  who  gets  that  and  how  much 
of  it  is  profit.) 

(Soci.  thought.  That  probably  is  to  pay  actual  operating 
expenses. ) 

Mayor.  "Here  we  are,  gentlemen,  this  is  the  City  Hall," 
and  they  got  oif  and  walked  towards  it  through  the  little 
plaza  by  the  big  cannon  and  stood  near  the  Lick  Monument, 
the  committee  from  Mars  intently  admiring  the  stately 
building, 

"The  figure  you  see  on  the  dome."  said  the  Mayor,  "repre- 
sents Justice  and  Liberty. ' ' 

( How  appropriate  !  thought  the  Socialist. ) 

(A  figure  of  Justice  and  Liberty  is  one  thing,  to  have 
Justice  and  Liberty  is  another,  thought  Piute)  and  below 
it,  learned  and  impartial  judges  weigh  in  the  scales  of  Justice 
the  claim  of  every  man  that  has  a  grievance." 

(What  a  glorious  privilege  the  people  enjoy,  thought  the 
Socialist.) 

( These  Judges  must  be  a  rare  breed,  surely,  thought  Piute, ) 

Soci.  I  do  not  imagine  they  can  have  much  to  do,  under 
your  admirable  system  of  government?" 

Mayor.  "Beg  your  pardon,  they  have  really  more  than 
they  can  do,  and  there  are  twelve  departments  of  the  Superior 
Court  with  one  Judge  in  each  and  five  Justices  of  the  Peace  in 
this  building  besides  four  police  Judges  at  the  Hall  of  Justice 
on  Kearny  street  and  each  holds  court  daily  (except  holi- 
days) throughout  the  year." 

Soci.  (The  Socialist  grew  pale)  "I  can't  understand  how 
your  people  can  possibly  have  so  many  grievances  to  be  ad- 
justed, living  as  they  do  under  such  an  equitable  constitu- 
tion." 

(Piute  smiled.  "Tt  looks  as  if  it  was  coming  my  way 
now,  sure.  Constitutional  moonshine — that's  what  it  is!"  he 
thought. ) 

Mayor.  "It  seems  foolish  to  me  too  (but  what  the  Devil 
has  the  Constitution  got  to  do  with  the  number  of  law  suits, 
I  wonder,  he  thought")  but  they  always  find  something  to 
quarrel  about  and  I  suppose  always  will." 

(Piute  to  himself,  "Of  course  they  will.  It's  perfectly  nat- 
ural if  there's  competition,  and  every  thing  indicates  there  is. 
If  they've  got  competition,  they've  got  Plutes.  The  two  go 
together,  and  Plutes  lie  down  with  the  common  people  like 
lions  lie  down  with  lambs.  Judges  and  courts  on  Mars  are 
mere  harvest  machines  for  Plutes  and  perhaps  its  that  way 
here.  Ours  run  throughout  the  year,  too;  its  always  harvest 
time  with  us  and  sixteen  Judges,  five  Justices  of  the  Peace  and 
twenty-one  courts  would  be  nothing  there  in  a  town  of  this 
size.") 

Mayor.  (Stepping  a  little  out  towards  the  street.)  "Yon- 
der wing  is  the  Hall  of  Records. ' ' 

Piute.     "And  what  does  that  mean?" 


100  THE    WAY  OUT. 

Mayor.  "Why,  all  titles  are  recorded  and  preserved  there 
and — 

"What  titles — ^Avhose  titles?"  (interrupted  the  Socialist 
anxiously.) 

Mayor.  "Titles  to  real  property  of  all  the  people's  Deeds, 
XiCases,  Liens,  Land  Contracts,  Mortgages  and  such  other 
instruments  as  afifeet  any   interest   in  land." 

Soci.  (Hopefully.)  "Do  you  mean  that  all  the  people 
liave  an  interest  in  land?" 

Mayor.  "Oh,  no!  not  all  the  people.  All  people  do  not 
own  land.  It  is  mostly  owned  by  a  few.  The  bulk  of  the 
people  own  none;  they  lease.  Some  own  their  homes,  some 
partly  own  them,  others  own  nothing  but  a  few  household 
goods  and  perhaps  a  cow,  horse  or  team,  cart  or  wagon,  and 
may  be  a  few  simple  tools,  while  others  own  nothing  at  all 
but  the  clothes  on  their  backs." 

(Soci.  to  himself.     My  CTod,  what  a  revelation!) 

Soci.  "Surely  the  laboring  men,  those  who  do  all  the  hard 
work,  are  provided  with  homes?" 

Mayor.  "Oh,  yes,  but  they  have  to  pay  rent.  Very  few, 
in  fact  less  of  that  class  own  their  own  homes  than  any  other." 

(Piute  to  himjself.  Just  what  I  expected.  It's  worse  than 
Mars.  Now,  I  know  there  are  Plutes  among  them.  Soci's 
dream  of  Eights  because  of  a  Declaration  of  Rights  is  doomed. 
Its  fading  fast.  I'm  rarely  affected  with  sentiment,  but  I  pity 
him.  Rights  and  Plutes  don't  affiliate  here  I  see,  any 
more  than  at  home.  Wliy  should  they?  They  can't.  They 
won't  mix.     They  can't  he  made  to.    It  ain't  natural.) 

After  a  moment's  reflection  the  Socialist  ventured  to  in- 
quire— 

"Don't  the  people  own  the  car  line  we  came  here  on  this 
morning  ? ' ' 

Mayor.  ' '  Oh,  no !  not  any  of  it.  That  is  the  property  of 
the  United  Railroads,  a  private  corporation. 

(Flute  to  himself.     God,  what  a  snap  it  must  have!) 

Soci.  "And  the  ma.jestic  display  of  lights  last  night,  did 
a  private  corporation  do  that?" 

INIayor.    "Yes,  under  a  contract." 

Soci.     "And  those  in  the  hotel?" 

Mkyor.     "Yes,  every  light  in  the  city. 

(Piute  to  himself.     Gee,  what  a  cinch!) 

Soci.    "Well,  do  the  people  own  nothing?" 

Mayor.  "Oh,  yes,  this  City  Hall  is  theirs,  the  Ferry  Depot 
you  visited  last  night.  Hall  of  Justice,  Jail,  some  of  the  Public 
School  buildings,  a  Hospital  or  two,  the  Streets,  Fire  engines 
and  apparatus,  some  office  furniture  and  fixtures,  a  few  tools 
and  some  other  things. 

Soci.    "Why  don't  they  own  everything?" 

Mayor.  "Own  everything?  Oh  that  would  7iever  do,  that 
would  be  Socialism.  I  am  in  favor  of  the  public  ownership  of 
some  things,  I  wanted  them  to  own  and  operate  the  Geary 
street  car  line,  but  they  voted  it  down  twice." 


THE  WAY  OUT.  101 

Soci.     "Who?" 

Mayor.     "The  people  themselves." 
Soci.     "Was  there  not  a  ma.jority  for  if?" 
Mayor.     "Yes,  but  the  law  requires  a  two-thirds  majority." 
Soei.     "I  thought  a  majority  ruled  here?" 
Mayor.    ' '  It  does  in  almost  everything  else. ' ' 
Soci.    "Why  don't  it  in  this?"' 

Mayor.  "Well,  its  this  way.  You  see  the  corporations 
make  the  laws  and  they  fixed  them  so  that  whatever  they  want 
they  can  get  wuth  a  majority  vote,  but  what  the  people  want 
they  must  have  a  two-thirds  majority  to  get,  and  it's  hard  to 
get' it." 

Soci.  "But  I  don't  see  why,  more  than  two-thirds  of  the 
voters  must  be  outside  of  the  corporations?" 

Mayor.  "That  is  true,  but  you  see  most  every  company  and 
corporation  has  a  big  graft,  and  all  who  own  stock  in  any  of 
them  get  big  interest  on  their  money  and  don't  want  to  let 
go;  besides,  if  the  people  got  one  thing  they  are  afraid  they 
would  want  more  and  finally  vote  to  take  all ;  so,  they  all  club 
together  and  are  able  to  influence  (by  a  back-handed  action) 
enough  of  those  they  are  constantly  skinning — but  whom  they 
succeed  in  convincing  they  are  not — to  vote  with  them,  and  in 
this  way  they  keep  us  from  getting  a  two-thirds  majority." 
(Piute.  By  Jove,  I'm  learning  something.) 
Soci.  to  himself.  "You  say  the  lights  are  furnished  by  a 
private  corporation  under  a  contract,  is  much  public  work 
done  by  contract?" 

Mayor.    "Oh,  yes,  about  all  of  it." 

Soci.  "But  is  not  the  object  of  contractors  in  taking  con- 
tracts to  make  money?" 

Mayor.    "Why,  certainly,  it  is  to  make  a  profit." 
Soci.    "And  when  they  contract  to  do  work  for  the  public 
is  it  the  same,  do  they  expect  to  make  a  profit  off  the  people?" 
Mayor.    "Of  course,  and  I  guess  they  always  do.    Some  of 
them  seem  to  get  rich  at  it." 

Soci.  "Then  w^hat  the  contractors  get  ahead  the  people 
get  behind?" 

Mayor.  "Yes,  that  is  about  it,  what  one  makes  the  other 
losses." 

Soci.  "Are  the  people  so  rich  that  they  want  to  help  the 
contractors  to  get  rich  too?" 

Mayor.  "Oh,  no!  the  people  have  to  tax  themselves,  that 
is,  their  political  representatives  tax  them,  to  raise  money  to 
pay  the  contractors  and  it  is  pretty  hard  on  some  of  them, 
in  fact  on  a  great  many  of  them,  to  scrape  enough  together 
to  pay  their  part  of  the  tax." 

Soci.  "Then  why  don't  they  do  their  own  work  and  not 
tax  themselves  to  give  the  contractors  a  profit  to  make  them 
rich?" 

Mayor.  "That  M'ould  be  considered  as  interfering  with 
and  discouraging  legitimate  private  enterprise  and  would  not 
be  tolerated." 


102  THE  WAY  OUT. 

Soci.  "Is  a  private  enterprise  that  makes  a  profit  out 
of  the  public  considered  legitimate  and  to  be  tolerated  in 
preference  to  public  enterprise  that  would  leave  such  protit  in 
the  pockets  of  the  people?" 

Mayor.  ''Well,  yes.  Yon  see  bids  are  called  for  and  there 
is  supposed  to  be  competition  and  the  contract  is  let  to  the 
lowest  responsible  bidder,  on  the  theory  that  private  enter- 
prise, under  competition,  will  do  the  work  cheaper  than  the 
public  could  do  it." 

Soci.    "Do  the  people  want  cheap  work  or  good  work?" 

Mayor.     "Good  work  of  course." 

Soci.  "Do  thev  expect  to  get  it  for  less  than  it  is  vmrtli 
to  doit?" 

IMayor.    "Oh  no,  they  expect  to  pay  well  for  it." 

Soci.  "Are  the  people  glad  if  men  compete  and  one  takes 
a  contract  too  cheap  and  loses  money?" 

Mayor.  "Well,  I  guess  they  don't  care  very  much  and 
probably  some  are  glad." 

Soci.  "I  see.  It  is  considered  right,  then,  for  private  en- 
terprise to  wrong  the  public  and  equally  right  for  the  public 
to  wrong  private  enteqirise,  as  the  case  mav  be,  if  either  can 
do  it." 

]\Iayor.  "If  we  judge  by  the  practice,  yes;  if  we  .judge  by 
our  theory  of  morality,  no." 

Soci.  "Do  not  bidders  sometimes  form  collusions  to  get 
an  unfair  price?" 

IMayor.    "I  suppose  they  do." 

Soci.     "Do  they  ever  bribe  public  officers  to  get  contracts?" 

Mayor.     "Not  here,  but  I  have  heard  of  such  things." 

Soci.  "If  they  compete  and  take  a  contract  cheap  do  they 
ever  try  to  make  it  up  by  slighting  the  work  or  service  or 
paying  their  hired  men  less  wages  or  making  them  work  more 
hours?" 

Mayor.  "Well,  yes;  slighting  work  is  always  looked  for 
any  way,  and  as  to  paying  their  men  less  wages  and  working 
them  over  time,  it  is  customary  to  rely  principally  upon  mak- 
ing up  all  they  would  otherwise  lose  off  the  men  and  as  much 
more  as  they  can.    They  make  the  men  stand  the  loss." 

Soci.  "And  their  only  object  in  doing  so  is  to  save  them- 
selves and  increase  their  own  profits?" 

Mayor.     "There  is  no  doubt  about  that." 

Soci.  "Do  the  people  want  the  hired  men  who  do  their 
work  under-paid  and  over-worked?" 

Mayor.  "No.  I  don't  think  they  do,  but  how  can  they  help 
it  ?  they  do  not  hire  them. ' ' 

Soci.  "Couldn't  they  help  it  if  they  did  hire  them  and 
paid  them  themselves?" 

Mayor.     "Yes,  I  suppose  they  could." 
Soci.    "If  the  public  did  things  themselves  and  let  no  eon- 
tracts,  it  looks  as  if  the  profits  that  go  to  help  enrich  private 
individuals  could  go  to  increase  the  wages  of  the  men?" 

Mayor.     "It  looks  that  way  to  me,  too." 


THE   WAY  OUT.  103 

Soci.  "And  would  it  not  be  better  for  tbe  whole  city  if 
these  profits  went  to  the  hired  men  in  increased  wages  instead 
of  to  a  few  contractors  ? ' ' 

Mayor.     "Certainly  it  would." 

Soci.     "Why  don't  they  do  it r' 

Mayor.  "Well,  you  see^  under  our  industrial  system,  every- 
body is  supposed  to  look  out  for  himself,  and  everybody  is 
so  busy  doing  it  that  nobody  has  time  to  think  of  the  wel- 
fare of  any  one  else.  He  is  afraid  if  he  stops  a  little  while 
to  do  so  some  other  fellow  will  get  ahead  of  him  so  he  don't 
stop  until  he's  ready  to  be  buried,  that  is,  about  to  die." 

Soci.     ' '  But  all  can 't  get  ahead ! ' ' 

Mayor.  "No,  very  few  get  way  ahead,  what  we  would  call 
to  the  top;  the  great  mass  is  away  behind;  at  the  bottom  in 
fact,  and  you  might  say,  haven't  started  yet;  then  all  along  be- 
tween the  bottom  and  top  are  scattered  many  others  strug- 
gling with  all  their  miaht  to  surpass  each  other  and  reach  the 
top." 

Soci.     "What  do  you  call  those  at  the  bottom?" 

Mayor.     "The  laboring  class." 

Soci.     "And  those  at  the  top?" 

Mayor.     "The  capitalist  class. " 

Soci.     "And  those  between?" 

Mayor.  "They're  nothing.  Neither  one  thing  nor  the  other 
but  we  speak  of  them  as  "middlemen'  because  they  stand  be- 
tween the  other  two  and  make  a  profit  by  handling  what  they 
need  or  have  to  sell.  They  hope  some  day  to  be  capitalists, 
and  ape  capitalists  all  they  can,  but  its  all  a  dream;  they  are 
as  completely  in  the  power  of  capitalists  as  laborers  and  are 
steadily  being  forced  into  the  labor  ranks  as  capitalists  get 
stronger  and  freeze  them  out." 

Soci.     "How  freeze  them  out?" 

Mayor.  "Why,  economize  by  dispensing  with  their  services 
and  keeping  for  themselves  the  profits  they  permit  them  to 
maks  as  middlemen." 

Soci.     "What  does  the  capitalist  class  do?" 

Mayor.  "Nothing.  They  own  everything  the  earth  pro- 
duces or  that  is  produced  on  it,  use  the  laboring  class  to  pro- 
duce it  and  the  middle  men  to  distribute  it.  The  laboring 
class  is  necessary  to  them  but  middle  men  are  not,  and  some 
predict  that  gradually,  as  capitalists  put  in  operation  the 
economies  that  are  constantly  being  invented,  the.y  will  be- 
come extinct." 

Soci.     "Do  you  mean  they  will  die?" 

Mayor.  ' '  Oh,  no !  here  and  there  one  will  climb  into  the 
capitalist  class  and  all  the  rest  will  drop  back  with  the  labor- 
ing class  from  which  they  originally  sprang,  though  few  will 
own  it. ' ' 

Soci.  "Then  your  people  are  practically  divided  into  two 
classes,  capitalists  who  have  every  thing  and  laborers  who 
have  nothing?" 

Mayor,    "Yes,  that  is  about  right." 


104  THE  WAY  OUT.      . 

(Piute  to  himself.     I  believe  I'll  stay  here.) 

Soci.  "And  when  yon  let  a  public  contract  you  force  all 
the  people  to  pay  for  the  work  and  each  must  contribute 
a  little  besides  to  help  build  up  a  capitalist  class?" 

Mayor.     "Well,  yes,  if  that  does  it." 

Soci.  "You  say  the  capitalist  class  owns  everything,  what 
show  has  the  laboring  class  to  get  work  when  they  want  if?" 

Mayor,  "The  only  show  they  have  is  when  the  capitalists 
want  them,  unless  they  work  for  themselves." 

Soci.  "But  does  the  capitalist  want  the  laborer  unless  he 
can  make  a  profit  on  his  labor*?" 

Mayor.    "Of  course  not." 

Soci.  "How  can  he  work  for  himself  if  capitalists  own 
everything  1 ' ' 

Mayor.    ' '  Lease  of  them. ' ' 

Soci.    "But  in  doing  this  don't  he  work  for  them?" 

Mayor.     "To  the  extent  of  paying  rent,  that's  all." 

Soci.  "Don't  he  have  to  buy  of  the  capitalist  many  things 
besides  what  he  can  raise  or  produce  himself  and  pay  him  a 
big  profit  on  them? 

Mayor.    "Well,  yes,  I  guess  he  does." 

Soci.  "It  looks  to  me  as  if,  under  your  commercial  and 
industrial  system  the  laboring  class  have  to  help  keep  up  the 
capitalist  class  any  way  you  fix  it,  and  whether  they  want 
to  or  not." 

Mayor.     "I  don't  see  it  that  way." 

Soci.  "Well,  if  they  work  for  wages  the  capitalists  make 
a  profit  on  their  labor.    That's  one?" 

Mayor.    "Yes." 

Soci.  "If  they  lease  and  work  for  themselves  as  you  call 
it,  they  must  pay  them  rent.     That's  two?" 

Mayor.    "Yes."" 

Soci.  "And  a  profit  to  them  on  all  they  have  to  buy,  al- 
though it  may  have  been  made  or  produced  bv  other  laborers. 
That's  three?" 

Mayor.    "Yes,  that  is  so  too  if  you  look  at  it  in  that  way." 

Soci.  "If  you  think  of  any  other  way  to  look  at  it  I  would 
be  glad  to  hear  it." 

Mayor.     "I  do  not  know  as  there  is  any  othei*." 

Soci.     "Tell  me  how  the  wages  of  hired  men  are  fixed." 

Mayor.  "By  themselves  by  contracts  and  the  law  of  supply 
and  demand." 

Soci.  "Does  any  law  protect  hired  men  against  low  wages 
if  the  supply  of  men  wanting  work  is  greater  than  the  demand 
for  them?" 

Mayor.  "No,  the  men  who  will  work  the  cheapest  set  the 
jobs.'; 

Soci.  "Is  that  true  regardless  of  how  much  employers  can 
afford  to  pay?" 

Mayor.  "Yes,  what  they  can  afford  to  pay  has  nothing  to 
do  with  it." 

Soci.     "Is  that  right?" 


THE  WAY  OUT.  105 

Mayor.  "For  myself,  I  would  say  no,  but  it  is  the  rule 
and  everybody  practices  it  with  now  and  then  an  exception, 
although  all,  if  you  were  to  ask  them,  would  doubtless  say 
'No,' too." 

Soci.  "That's  strange.  What  becomes  of  the  man  that 
didn't  get  the  job?" 

The  Mayor.  "He  tramps  and  hunts  for  another.  Some- 
times if  he  don't  find  one,  he  becomes  a  professional  tramp.*' 

Soci.    "Are  there  many  men  out  of  work?" 

Mayor.    "Yes,  sometimes  a  great  many." 

Soci.  "Don't  these  men  compete  with  each  other  for 
jobs?" 

Mayor.     "Oh,  yes,  all  the  time." 

Soci.  "And  they  help  to  keep  each  other's  wages  down, 
don 't  they  ? ' ' 

Mayor.     "Of  course." 

Soci.  "What  prevents  the  laboring  class  from  getting 
poorer  and  yjoorer  and  the  capitalist  class  from  getting 
richer  and  richer?" 

Mayor.     "Nothing  but  Labor  Unions." 

Soci.     "How  do  they  do  it?" 

Mayor.  "They  don't  do  it,  only  partially.  They  try  to 
get  the  laboring  class  to  agree  among  themselves  to  refuse 
to  Avork  unless  they  get  certain  wages." 

Soci.  "Are  they  successful?" 

Mayor.  "Partly.  They  would  be  perfectly  if  they  could 
get  all  hired  men  to  go  into  unions,  and  they  could  hold  out, 
but  they  can't." 

Soci.     "Why  not?" 

Mayor.  "Well,  a  great  many  men  are  satisfied  to  be 
just  flunkeys  for  the  rich.  Others  are  too  mean  and 
ornery  to  want  to  better  their  condition,  others  are  so  densely 
ignorant  and  superstitious  they  think  God  meant  them  to 
be  what  they  are  and  would  curse  them  eternally  if  they 
made  an  attempt  to  be  anything  else,  while  others  are  simply 
sneaks  who  hope  to  get  the  benefit  of  Unions  without  helping 
to  bear  any  of  their  burdens. 

But  if  all  belonged  to  unions  and  should  strike  at  once, 
they  could  not  hold  out  because  they  have  nothing  to  depend 
upon  to  live  but  their  wages.  However,  if  you  want  to  find 
the  Men  among  them  you  will  find  them  in  the  Unions  de- 
manding, enforcing  and  defending  their  rights,  not  accepting 
them  agi  charities." 

Soci.  "Do  the  Unions  deny  the  right  of  a  man  to  sell  his 
labor  in  the  open  market  for  any  price  he  pleases?" 

Mayor.  ' '  Oh,  no,  they  never  have  denied  that  right ;  they 
regard  that  as  a  fundamental  personal  right." 

Soci.     "What  do  the  capitalists  think  about  it?" 

Mayor.  "They  think  just  as  the  Unions  do.  The  Unions 
and  capitalists  don't  disagree  on  that  point.  The  capitalists 
would  accuse  anyone  of  wishing  to  destroy  the  hired  man's 
freedom,  that  denied  his  right  to  hunt  and  take  a  job  at  any 


106  THE  WAY  OUT. 

price  he  is  willing-  to  work  for,  and  the  Unions  would  do  the 
same  thing." 

Soci.     "How.  then,  do  the  capitalists  and  Unions  differ?" 

Mayor.  "AVhy,  the  Unions,  while  admitting  the  right,  try 
to  get  hired  men  to  pledge  themselves  that  they  will  not  ex- 
ercise it,,  that's  all,  and  the  capitalists  try  to  persuade  them 
that  they  should  exercise  it  by  all  means  and  not  join  Unions. ' ' 

Soci.     "How  do  capitalists  try  to  persuade  them?" 

Mayor.  "Principally  by  laying:  siege  to  their  sto7nachs. 
that  is,  they  lock  them  out  and  try  to  starve  them  so  they  are 
glad  to  work  at  any  price.  Another  way  they  have  of  per- 
suading them  is  to  blacklist  them  so  other  capitalists  won't 
hire  them,  and  another  is,  to  threaten  those  who  do  not  belong 
to  a  Union  with  the  loss  of  their  jobs  if  thej'  join  one.  They 
sometimes  make  men  sign  a  written  agreement  before  they 
will  hire  them  at  all,  that  they  will  not  join  a  Union." 

Soci.     "Do  the  middlemen  compete  with  each  other?" 

Mayor.     "They  do  for  customers,  but  not  much  in  prices." 

Soci.    "Why  not  in  prices?" 

Mayor,  "As  I  told  you.  they  are  in  the  power  of  the  cap- 
italists too;  and  the  capitalists,  who  control  everything,  v/on't 
let  them.  Capitalists  regulate  the  prices  middlemen  must 
sell  at  and  if  any  disregard  their  instructions  and  sell  for 
less  than  the  prices  fixed,  they  won't  supply  them  with  any 
more  goods  and  so  force  them  to  shut  up  their  stores. 

Soci.  It  looks  to  a  stranger  as  if  Hired  Men,  Union  and 
non-Union,  and  Middlemen  must  have  a  rocky  time  of  it;  and 
yet,  there  seems  to  be  an  abundance  for  everybody  but  only  a 
few  have  access  to  it ;  and  what  seems  very  strange  about  it  is, 
those  who  have  access  to  and  full  control  of  everything  ac- 
tually produce  nothing." 

(Piute  to  himself  "H-m  to  my  mind  that's  the  beauty  of  it. 
As  the  Scriptures  say — on  Mars — reap  where  you  sowed  not, 
that's  the  test  of  business  cjualifications  every  time.") 

Mayor.  "Gentlemen,  I  have  to  apologize  and  beg  your 
pardon  for  keeping  you  standing  out  here  when  I  should  have 
conducted  you  to  my  office  long  ago,  but  really  I  got  so  ab- 
sorbed in  your  interesting  questions  that  I  forgot  all  about  it. 
Come  let  us  go  in  now." 

Soci.  "Oh,  never  mind  IMr.  Mayor,  do  not  blame  yourself 
in  the  least,  this  has  been  no  inconvenience  to  me  whatever, 
nor  do  I  think  it  has  to  Piute.  I  am  really  glad  we  stopped 
outside  and  talked  because  it  has  been  free  and  full,  and  inside 
we  might  have  been  interrupted.  Now,  T  have  one  more  inat- 
ter  I  wish  to  ask  you  about. 

Will  you  kindly  look  at  this  (hands  him  a  copy  of  the 
Declaration  of  Rights  of  California  which  he  had  taken 
pains  to  make,  leaving  off  the  Certificate  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  State,  the  number  of  the  Section  and  Article  of  the 
Constitution  so  there  was  nothing  to  identify  it  except  its 
language)   and  tell  me  what  it  is?"    (The  Mayor  reads  it.) 


THE   WAY   OUT.  107 

"Why  thats —  ah,  that's  I — ah,  I  believe  that's — ah,  ]et  me 
see  now — where  did  you  get  it  ? " 

Soci.  "It  was  handed  to  me  on  the  Mars  and  is  what 
brought  Piute  and  I  down  here. 

I  was  led  to  think  it  was  a  true  copy  of  the  Declaration 
of  Rights  found  in  the  Constitution  of  your  State  and" — 

Mayor.  "Yes,  yes,  I  see.  Now  I  remember,  that  is  what 
it  is.  I  knew  I  had  seen  it  before  but  could  not  for  the  life 
of  me  think  just  where,  when  you  first  asked  about  it. "  ( The 
Socialist  looked  chagrined  towards  Piute  Mobile  Piute  was  say- 
ing to  himself  "Of  course,  no  capitalist  would  be  expected  to 
remember  where  that  was,  he  has  no  use  for  it  except  to  for- 
get it.") 

Soci.     "I  was  about  to  say,  Mr.  Mayor,  that  the  only  in- 
formation I  had  of  conditions  on  the  Earth  I  got  from  read- 
ing and  interpreting  that  document.     I  knew  before  I  left 
Mars  it  was  a  part  of  the  fundamental  law  of  your  State,  and 
I  concluded  the  people  of  California,  under  such  a  Declara- 
tion of  Rights,  nntst  be  enjoying  to  the  utmost,  Life,  Liberty 
and  Happiness,  in  fact  were  perfectly  secure  in  those  things; 
and,  in  my  speeches  on  the  Mars  I  so  informed  my  suffering, 
Plute-ridden  people,  and  advised  them  never  to  rest  until  they 
had  obtained  for  themselves  a  similar  Declaration  of  Rights; 
that    they   could   never    expect    Justice   until    they   had    it. 
Piute,  here,  was  present  at  one  of  my  meetings  and  heard  me, 
and  challenged  the  truth  of  my  representations  as  to  the  in- 
dustrial and  social  conditions  here,  based  on  this  Declaration. 
He  admitted  the  Declaration  guaranteed  all  I  claimed  for  it 
on  behalf  of  your  people,  but  said  I  had  no  evidence  that  they 
enjoyed  those  rights  or  any  of  them,  even  though  the  Declara- 
tion did  guarantee  them,  and  from  his  intimate  experience 
with  men  who  composed  political  conventions  and  made  plat- 
forms on  the  Mars,  he  did  not  hesitate  to  say  it  was  his  firm 
belief  that  as  a  matter  of  fact  they  did  not  enjoy  them  or 
any  of  them.    He  accused  me  of  being  an  enthusiast  and  dis- 
turber, but  I  was  so  sure  I  was  right  and  he  wrong,  that  to 
settle  the  question  we  decided  to  come  down  here  as  a  com- 
mittee and  investigate.    We  have  been  here  but  a  short  time, 
but  it  has  been  long  enough  to  convince  me  that  Piute  was 
right  and  I  was  wrong. 

"Your  people  have,  in  their  Constitution,  by  this  Declara- 
tion (Sec.  1,  Art.  1,)  laid  the  foundation  for  the  enjoyment 
by  all  of  them  of  the  highest  industrial  and  social  conditions, 
but  they  make  no  use  of  it  whatever.  They  seem  to  have 
been  satisfied  with  the  mere  Declaration  and  stopped  at  that. 
The  result  is,  they  have  the  Declaration  but  that  is  all.  I 
had  pictured  the  average  intelligence,  patriotism  and  courage 
of  your  laboring  class  to  be  so  far  above  the  average  of  ours 
that,  I  said  to  ours,  if  yours  could  know  of  the  stupid  practice 
ours  have  of  dividing  their  votes  between  the  candidates  of 
the  Plutes  at  each  election  instead  of  voting  solidly  together 


108  THE  WAY  OUT. 

for  men  of  their  own  class,  yours  would  laugh  at  ours;  but 
now,  honest  Indian,  and  you  will  please  pardon  the  emphasis 
I  use  in  saying  it,  since  I  know  the  truth  about  the  stupidity 
of  yours,  I  believe  ours  might  justly  claim  the  right  to  laugh 
at  yours  instead;  and  what  is  more,  your  leading  citizens 
know  so  little  about  this  Declaration  of  Rights  that,  they  do 
not  know  where  to  find  it.  Many  of  them  do  not  even  know  it 
when  they  see  it ;  and  here,  I  had  fancied  your  humblest  citi- 
zen, yes,  your  children,  would  know  all  about  it.  I  thought 
the  Mars,  with  no  Declaration  of  Rights  at  all,  was  pretty 
badly  off,  but,  I  swear  to  God  it  is  better  off  with  none,  than 
the  State  of  California,  United  States  of  America,  Western 
Hemisphere,  Planet  Earth  is,  with  one,  and  I  am  greatly  dis- 
appointed, in  fact,  surprised  and  disgusted  to  iind  that  this 
Declaration  and  the  Freedom  your  people  boast  of  under  and 
by  virtue  of  it.  is  all  hot  air. ' ' 

''You  say  all  men  have  an  inalienable  right  to  e)ijoy  Life, 
and  then  you  deprive  them  of  the  means  of  enjoying  it  by 
permitting  a  few  to  acquire  and  keep  more  of  those  means 
than  they  need  to  enjoy  theirs. 

"You  say  all  men  have  an  inalienahle  right  to  defend  Life, 
and  then  deprive  them  of  access  to  the  only  things  they  have 
to  depend  on  to  protect  it,  nature's  resources. 

"You  say  all  men  have  an  inalienahle  right  to  Libert y, 
and  then  deprive  them  of  their  Liberty  to  toil,  to  feed  them- 
selves unless  others  say  they  may. 

"You  say  all  men  have  an  inalienable  right  to  pursue  and 
obtain  Safety  and  Happiness,  and  then  fence  up  every  road 
by  which — were  it  open — it  w^ould  be  possible  to  travel  in  the 
pursuit  of  either.  In  fact  you  have  fixed  things  so  as  to  make 
them  think  that,  by  pursuing  with  greater  zeal  and  practicing 
more  economy,  it  would  be  possible  to  overtake  and  possess 
safety  and  happiness  and  it  is  not  true.  Their  added  zeal  and 
self  denial  only  contributes  that  much  more  to  the  unearned 
Safety  and  Happiness  of  others.  For  them,  Safety  and  Hap- 
piness are  as  far  in  the  distance  in  old  age  as  in  youth. 

Finally,  you  sa}^  which  is  the  greatest  fake  of  all.  that  these 
rights  are  all  birthrights  and  inalienable  and  then  straight- 
way permit  every  man  to  sell  or  mortgage  them  for  a  mess  of 
pottage  to  some  sharp  whom  you  protect,  and  ever  after  re- 
main a  beggar.  You  permit  others  and  their  children  to  de- 
feat any  man  and  his  children  absolutely,  of  all  their  inalien- 
able inheritances  and  leave  him  and  them  stranded  in  the 
world  without  relief  or  the  hope  of  it,  forever. 

And  noAv  jNIr.  INIayor,  as  it  is  my  intention  to  return  to  the 
Mara  as  soon  as  possible  and  make  report,  I  trust  you  will 
allow  me  to  assure  you  that  I  place  myself  under  eternal  ob- 
ligations to  you  for  permitting  me  most  respectfully  to  decline 
hearing  or  seeing  any  more.  I  cannot  however,  take  my  leave 
without  expressing  to  you  my  profoundest  gratitude  for  the 


THE  WAY  OUT,  109 

\ 

gentlemanly  courtesies  you  have  so  kindly  shown  us  and  for 
the  generous  hospitalities  extended  by  your  citizens." 

(To  Piute.)  "When  will  it  suit  your  convenience  to  re- 
turn?" 

Piute.  "My  dear  Socialist,  1  have  decided  that  I  will  not 
go  back  at  present."  (Aside)  "Say  Soci,  the  earth  has  more 
suckers  than  the  Mars  and  they  are  easier  caught.  I  don't 
wish  to  flatter  you,  but  Avith  the  energy  you  fellows  on  the 
Mars  are  exerting  I  believe  you  will  wake  the  laboring  class 
up  there  long  before  they  do  here  to  vote  together,  capture 
the  machinery  of  government,  run  it,  and  destroy  the  main 
thing  (the  hired  man)  we  have  relied  on,  from  time  imme- 
morial, to  make  us  rich,  and  so  I  am  going  to  stay.  You  re- 
member the  old  saying,  'Make  hay  while  the  sun  shines,'  well, 
in  my  judgment  here's  the  place  to  make  it;  and  say,  damn 
it,  since  you  are  going,  let  up ;  don 't  talk  any  more  to  his 
Honor:  you  might  get  him  to  thinking.  They  are  all  fine 
looking  people  down  here,  but  say,  they're  not  near  as  smart 
as  they  look." 

( Curtain. ) 


110  THE   WAY  OUT. 


WHAT  IS  MEANT  BY  RIGHT  TO  ENJOY  AND  DE- 
FEND LIFE  AND  OBTAIN  SAFETY  AND  HAPPI- 
NESS, IN  SEC.  1,  ART.  I,  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 
OF  CALIFORNIA. 

AVhen  the  Constitution  says  all  men  have  an  ^'inalienable 
right  to  enjoy  and  defend  life  and  obtain  safety  and  happi- 
ness/' what  does  it  mean? 

Does  it  mean  by  "right  to  enjoy  life,"  exemption  only  from 
physical  assaults? 

Does  it  mean  by  "right  to  defend  life,"  a  man's  right  to 
defend  himself  or  have  the  state  do  it,  against  physical  vio- 
lence only? 

Does  it  mean  by  "right  to  pursue"  safety  and  happiness, 
the  right  to  run  a  race  for  them  with  everybody  else,  and  the 
right  of  those  in  the  lead  needlessly  to  place  obstacles  in  the 
way  of  those  behind  and  prevent  them  if  possible  from  over- 
taking either? 

Does  it  mean  by  ^^ safety  and  happiness"  no  more  than  can 
be  obtained  by  hiding,  running  away  from  or  otherwise  avoid- 
ing bodily  harm? 

Would  such  a  limited  "right  to  enjoy  and  defend  life"  or 
"obtain  safety  and  happiness"  be  a  complete  fulfillment  of  the 
purpose  of  the  Constitution? 

Does  the  Constitution  have  in  view  no  other  or  higher  pur- 
pose than  just  the  life,  safety  and  happiness  of  the  individual 
for  his  own  sake? 

If  we  look  about  and  notice  how  our  courts  and  officers 
chiefly  spend  their  time,  we  might  think  society  (which  is 
responsible  for  what  they  do  not  do)  takes  that  narrow  view  oi 
it:  that  is  it  takes  the  view  (1)  that  the  sole  purpose  of  the 
Constitution  is  the  protection  of  the  individual  from  physical 
violence,  (2)  that  the  protection  given  him  is  for  his  o\^^l 
sake  alone  and  no  other  or  higher  purpose  is  involved. 

It  is  not  true  that  the  purpose  of  the  Constitution  is  to 
limit  the  right  of  the  individual  to  protection  against  ph.ysical 
violence  only.  Its  purpose  is  to  protect  him  against  every- 
thing that  assails  life  or  the  enjoyment  of  it  and  everything 
that  jeopardizes  his  safety  or  deprives  him  of  happiness  that 
would  be  rightfully  his:  otherwise,  his  Constitutional  rights 
would  amount  to  nothing. 

Nor  is  its  purpose  in  providing  such  complete  protection  to 
the  individual,  for  his  sake  alone :  a  further  and  higher  right 
is  involved,  namely:  the  ritrht  of  society  to  protection;  and  it 
is  protected  only  in  proportion  as  the  individual  is  protected. 
If  he  is  not  protected,  society  is  not.  Therefore  the  primary 
object  and  purpose  of  the  Constitution  in  specifyinu'  the  rights 
of  all  men  was,  the  preservation  of  Society ;  and  as  protection 


THE  WAY  OUT.  Ill 

of  the  man  is  the  protection  of  Society,  and  he  must  depend 
upon  Society  for  as  much  of  it  as  he  gets,  the  duty  of  Society 
to  itself,  in  giving  him  complete  and  perfect  protection,  is 
manifest. 

Has  it  ever  done  it  or  does  it  do  it  now'?  No,  he  has  had 
only  partial  protection  and  has  no  more  now  than  he  had  be- 
fore the  Constitution,  in  fact  he  has  less.  The  same  old 
methods  that  were  employed  to  skin  him  then  are  still  made 
use  of  to  deprive  him  of  Life,  Safety  and  Happiness  with  this 
difference,  it  is  done  now  more  systematically,  scientifically 
and  thoroughly  and  on  a  larger  scale,  and  his  chances  to  escape 
are  far  less. 

When  the  state  protects  the  individual  from  personal  vio- 
lence and  his  property  from  the  common  thief  and  other  simi- 
lar criminals,  it  protects  him  against  only  the  least  of  those 
who  prey  upon  him.  Against  those  who  constantly  prey  upon 
him,  impoverish  him,  degrade  him  and  make  him  miserable, 
it  furnishes  no  protection  whatever. 

Every  discrete  person  can  protect  himself  fairly  well  against 
ordinary  criminals  without  any  help  from  the  state  or  its  of- 
ficers. It  is  seldom  that  people  who  behave  themselves  and  ex- 
ercise ordinary  caution  and  prudence,  have  occasion  to  ask 
the  state  to  protect  them  from  violence  of  any  kind ;  but  the 
offenders  and  their  offenses  against  whom  and  of  which  I 
complain,  no  law  reaches,  no  Court  condemns  and  no  citizen 
can  avoid. 

They  are  not  mentioned  in  the  Penal  Code,  yet  a  common 
thief  is  a  good  Samaritan  compared  with  them. 

Who  are  those  offenders  and  what  are  their  offenses'? 

We  do  not  have  to  look  across  the  sea  to  find  them,  nor 
with  suspicion  upon  any  foreign  power.  They  are  right  here 
at  home.  Every  man  that  works  for  less  than  reasonable 
wages  may  look  at  his  employer  and  see  one  of  them. 

Every  employer  does  not  know  it.  or  even  have  a  suspicion 
that  by  paying  his  hired  man  less  than  reasonable  wages  he  is 
depriving  him  of  his  Constitutional  right  of  enjoying  and  de- 
fending his  Life  and  obaining  Safety  and  Happiness,  but  he 
is,  just  the  same;  nor  does  it  affect  the  particular  person  alone 
that  is  underpaid,  it  affects  all  who  work  for  wages  and  So- 
ciety itself. 

Some  people  will  contend  that  the  employer  who  pays  less 
than  reasonable  wages  does  not  deprive  his  hired  man  of  en- 
joying and  defending  life  or  obtaining  safety  and  happiness, 
while  others  will  say  it  is  a  question.  But  it  is  not  a  question, 
it  is  a  fact ;  one  that  cannot  be  controverted,  and  the  employer 
guilty  of  it  should  be,  to  that  extent,  classed  as  an  enemy  of 
society — perhaps  a  criminal,  for  he  is  doing  a  criminal  thing 
whether  he  or  society  realizes  it  or  not. 

WTiy  should  the  state  punish  a  man  who  robs  another  on 
the  public  highway  any  quicker  than  one  who  robs  another  in 
a  factory  or  on  a  farm  of  fair  wages,  because  hungry  and 
obliged  to  work  for  any  wages  offered?    Both  men  are  mem- 


112  THE  WAY  OUT. 

bers  of  Society  and  both  are  wronged.  Can  a  member  of 
Society  be  wronged  without  Avronging  Society?  If  Society  is 
wronged  has  it  no  right  to  object?  It  has  a  right  to  protect 
itself  and  when  it  is  protecting  one  of  its  members  it  is  only 
protecting  itself. 

The  question  should  not  be  hoiv  a  man  is  wronged  but  is 
he  wronged. 

But  what  kind  of  a  show  has  a  man  to  en.joy  and  defend 
life  and  obtain  safety  and  happiness  if  society  refuses  to 
protect  him  against  men  who  will  not  pay  him  reasonable 
wages  for  his  work  1 

It  is  self-evident  that  all  men  have  a  right  to  live  unless 
they  do  something  to  forfeit  life,  and  whether  they  can  get 
w^ork  or  not  they  must  eat,  wear  clothes,  and  be  housed.  It  is 
also  self-evident  that  they  will  marry  and  raise  families  and 
must  have  the  same  necessities  for  them. 

It  is  self-evident  that  none  of  these  necessities  will  come 
unless  they  work  to  provide  them. 

Now,  if  they  are  willing-  to  work  but  cannot  get  it  unle-iS 
a  few  men  who  own  all  the  land,  tools  mills  and  machinery 
say  they  may,  and  these  men  have  the  power  to  fix  their  wages 
and  the  terms  and  conditions  of  labor,  and  such  wages,  terms 
and  conditions  are  unreasonable  and  oppressive,  and  the  state 
stands  behind  those  few  men  and  says:  "That's  right,  that's 
your  privilege,  the  law  sustains  you  and  the  Courts,  Sheriffs 
and  Soldiers  are  at  your  service  to  enforce  the  terms  on  which 
you  allowed  them  to  work, ' '  and  they  do  enforce  them,  tell  me, 
what  are  the  idle,  propertyless  men  with  starving  families 
to  do? 

How  are  they  to  enjoy  and  defend  life  or  obtain  safety  and 
happiness  ?  They  must  do  one  of  five  things :  Work  for  what 
the  few  are  willing  to  pay,  starve,  steal,  beg  or  vote  to  wipe 
out  the  system  that  permits  a  few  to  have  more  than  they 
need  and  deprives  all  the  rest  of  having  anything. 

It  is  not  because  the  earth  does  not  produce  enough,  nor 
is  it  because  men  won't  work  that  life,  safety  and  happiness 
is  denied  them;  it  is  because  they  can't  get  the  work  to  do  at 
living  wages. 

The  commonest  luxuries  are  beyond  the  reach  of  millions, 
none  of  whom  have  any  hope  of  them  (except  a  few,  silly 
enough  to  believe  their  time  will  come  yet  to  get  rich,  but 
their  only  idea  of  right  is  to  shift  their  chains  on  to  others) 
at  the  same  time  great  stores,  factories  and  warehouses  are 
filled  with  the  beautiful  things  their  weary  fingers  have 
fashioned. 

Instead  of  making  it  a  crime  to  produce  such  conditions 
it  should  be  made  impossible. 

In  California,  the  Constitution  has  laid  the  foundation  for 
making  them  impossible;  and  if  the  legislature  and  courts 
will  follow  it,  they  would  save  themselves  the  impossible  task 
of  trying  to  reconcile  the  many,  and  constantly  increasing, 
perplexing  questions  that  necessarily  arise  from  their  per- 


THE  WAY  OUT.  113 

sistent  attempts  to  substitute  a  false  and  revolutionary  system 
of  rights,  for  the  true  and  peaceful  one  it  contemplates. 

You  don't  understand?  You  don't  see  how  the  Constitu- 
tion is  disregarded? 

Well,  read  Section  1,  Article  I,  again.  Don't  it  say  all  men 
have  a  right  to  enjoy  life ;  that  all  men  have  a  right  to  pos- 
sses  property  and  obtain  safety  and  happiness?  And  don't 
it  say  those  rights  are  inalienable? 

Now,  look  about  you,  do  all  men  enjoy  life?  Do  all  pos- 
sess property  ?    Are  all  safe  ?    Are  all  happy  ? 

Are  these  conditions  possible  for  all  so  long  as  one  man  or 
a  few  men  or  any  number  of  men  less  than  all  men  are  per- 
mitted to  own  and  possess  the  whole  earth  ? 

If  a  few  have  all  that  is  indispensible  to  the  life,  safety  and 
happiness  of  all,  and  keep  those  who  have  nothing,  from  get- 
ting something,  except  a  little  at  uncertain  times  and  in  un- 
certain quantities  as  suits  them,  and  the  courts  uphold  that 
sort  of  arrangement,  how  is  it  possible  for  those  who  have 
nothing  and  no  way  to  get  it,  to  enjoy  life  or  obtain  safety 
or  happiness? 

The  Constitution  says  Life,  Safety  and  Happiness  are 
inalienable  rights  of  all  men,  but  as  the  rich  and  the  courts 
(and  even  those  who  are  wronged)  construe  it,  nearly  all  men 
are  deprived  of  them. 

The  trouble  is  not  in  the  Constitution,  it  lies  in  those  who 
undertake  to  make  the  laws  in  conformity  with  it  and  those 
who  are  called  upon  to  enforce  them;  one  is  the  Legislature 
and  the  other  the  Courts. 

These  two  branches  of  government  have  undertaken  to  set 
up  and  maintain  a  false,  revolutionary  and  impossible  sys- 
tem of  rights,  namely:  a  system  of  unlimited  private  owner- 
ship of  the  means  of  human  existence,  in  place  of  those  the 
Constitution  has  provided  for,  and  the  result  has  been,  and 
will  be  as  long  as  it  is  tried,  to  defeat  the  purpose  of  the  Con- 
stitution by  depriving  men  of  the  rights  it  says  are  indefeas- 
ibly  theirs. 

The  attempt  to  set  up  and  maintain  this  false  system  has 
played  havoc  with  everybody's  rights;  and  when  we  see  it 
has  done  that,  what  must  we  think  of  its  effect  on  that  humble 
class  the  least  able  to  look  out  for  themselves,  in  the  fearful 
and  mad  struggle  to  privately  own — the  common  wage 
earners? 

Everybody  knows  the  system  is  destructive  yet  nobody 
seems  willing  to  abandon  it  and  go  back  to  the  Constitution. 
I  do  not  know  why  unless  it  is  because  everybody  is  so  used 
to  skinning  everybody  else  and  is  so  certain  he  can  do  it  more 
than  everybody  else  can  skin  him  that  he  don't  want  to 
change.  If  that  is  it,  such  boss  skinners  as  Rockefeller  will 
eventually  take  the  conceit  out  of  most  of  them  by  skinning 
them  "to  a  finish,"  Judges,  Legislators  and  all,  and  then 
they  will  be  ready  and  go  back  to  the  Constitution  with  a 
whoop ! 


114  THE  WAY  OUT. 

Men  underpay  their  hired  men  from  no  other  motive  than 
to  get  rich,  and  the  only  reason  why  society  tolerates  them  is, 
because  every  member  of  it  is  willing  to  get  rich  by  the  same 
process  if  he  can. 

Section  1,  Article  1,  of  the  Constitution  certainly  does  not 
mean  so  much  enjoyment  of  life,  safety  and  happiness  as  men 
can  get  if  protected  from  those  only  who  commit  the  crimes 
mentioned  in  the  Penal  Code,  leaving  them  wholly  unpro- 
tected from,  and  at  the  mercy  of,  those  who  control  the  cost 
of  living  and  arbitrarily  fix  their  wages.  That  class  of  men 
are  a  greater  menace  to  the  Life,  Liberty,  Safety  and  Happi- 
ness of  the  people  than  common  criminals. 

Nor  was  that  section  put  in  the  Constitution  for  mere  bun- 
combe, for  show,  something  to  be  pointed  to  and  bragged  about 
on  the  Fourth  of  July,  something  to  be  imagined  but  never 
enjoyed. 

It  was  not  put  there  to  charm  the  Soul  of  the  Sentiment- 
alist while  his  body  was  being  exploited  by  relentless  greed; 
it  was  put  there  to  secure  to  all  men  the  enjoyment  of  life 
by  securing  to  them  the  means  of  defending  it  and  obtaining 
Safety  and  Happiness,  and  their  only  possible  means  was,  an 
indefeasible  interest  in  their  necessary  share  of  the  earth. 
That  is  what  it  was  put  there  for,  but  so  far  the  legislature 
and  courts  have  helped  to  bunco  him  out  of  it. 

What  does  a  man's  "right  to  enjoy  and  defend  life  and  lib- 
erty and  obtain  safety  and  happiness"  amount  to  if  it  is  taken 
away  from  him?  How  does  it  benefit  one  to  have  the  right 
to  a  thing  if  he  can't  have  the  thing  itself? 

No  man  who  works  for  wages  can  ever  have  the  benefit  of 
that  section  of  the  Constitution  and  enjoy  or  defend  his  life 
or  liberty  or  obtain  safety  or  happiness  if  he  is  obliged  to  give 
his  labor  for  less  than  reasonable  wages,  and  if  the  legisla- 
ture and  courts  do  not  protect  him,  what  hope  has  he  1 

If  wages  are  always  to  be  so  much  less  than  reasonable, 
that  is,  so  far  below  the  necessary  expense  of  living  decently 
that  a  man  cannot  properly  feed,  dress  and  house  himself, 
wife  and  children,  should  tve  expect  him  to  he  contented  and 

STILL  BE  A  MAN  ? 

If  he  is  contented,  has  he  reached  that  standard  of  manhood 
we  wish  this  country  to  establish  for  its  men  ?  Is  he  the  type 
of  man  we  wish  this  country  to  produce? 


THE   WAY   OUT.  115 


VESTED  RIGHTS  AND  INALIENABLE  RIGHTS. 

Law  books  and  courts  have  devoted  much  time  if  not  much 
wisdom,  in  expounding  the  doctrine  of  vested  rights,  when  the 
only  vested  rights  any  one  has  (in  California)  are  those  de- 
clared in  Section  1,  Article  1,  of  the  Constitution,  namely: 
"Of  enjoying  and  defending  Life  and  Liberty;  acquiring, 
possessing  and  protecting  property  and  pursuing  and  obtain- 
ing safety  and  happiness. 

These  rights  are  not  only  vested,  they  are  inalienably  vested 
— each  one  of  them  and  all  of  them,  yet  none  of  them  receive 
nuich  attention  from  the  boolvs  or  courts  except  those  refer- 
ring to  property  rights  and  these  are  misunderstood  and  mis- 
interpreted. 

The  Constitution  gives  every  man  a  vested  right  to  en,joy 
and  defend  life  and  liberty,  to  obtain  safety  and  happiness 
and  to  possess  property,  but  how  much  of  the  time  and  at- 
tention of  courts  is  devoted  to  protecting  his  vested  right  to 
enjoy  or  defend  life  or  obtain  safety  or  happiness?  Not  any 
unless  such  enjoyment,  safety  or  happiness  is  in  danger  from 
physical  violence,  although  they  have  plenty  of  time  to  de- 
vote to  what  they  call  his  vested  right  to  property. 

If  a  man  has  a  vested  right  to  property  in  California,  he 
must  find  authority  for  it  in  the  Constitution,  the  same  auth- 
ority that  gives  him  a  vested  right  to  enjoy  and  defend  Life 
and  Liberty  and  to  obtain  Safety  and  Happiness,  and  why, 
when  the  Constitution  gives  him  a  vested  right  to  defend  Life 
and  Liberty  and  obtain  Safety  and  Happiness  and  these  are 
of  more  consequence  to  him  than  his  vested  right  to  the  pos- 
session of  property,  do  the  courts  lay  so  much  stress  on  the 
latter  right  and  so  little  on  the  former  and  more  consequen- 
tial right? 

Law  writers  have  written  volumes  about  vested  property 
rights,  but  not  one  about  the  vested  right  eveiy  man  has  to 
enjoy  and  defend  Life  and  Liberty  and  pursue  and  obtain 
Safety  and  Happiness. 

The  trouble  is,  courts  and  law  Avriters  have  from  time  im- 
memorial given  men's  property  rights  a  fictitious  importance. 
They  have  made  it  out  that  one  man  or  a  few  men  have  a  right 
to  own  and  possess  everything  instead  of  the  right  to  merely 
possess  what  they  need. 

What  is  meant  when  the  Constitution  says  these  rights  are 
inalienable? 

Was  the  word  inalienable  put  into  the  Constitution  to  mean 
something  or  nothing? 

One  would  think  it  was  put  there  to  mean  nothing  since 
most,  people  now  enjoy  none  of  therights  except  life — if  in- 
deed it  can  be  truly  said  the^'' enjoy  that,  and  why  is  it? 
What  is  the  matter  that  they  do  not? 


116  THE  WAY  OUT. 

Did  they  never  have  them  or  have  they  alienated  them? 
How  could  they  alienate  them  if  they  are  inalienable  1 

Has  Nature  gone  back  on  them  and  refused  longer  to  yield 
her  abundance? 

No !  No !  Nature  is  as  kind  as  ever  and  responds  generously 
and  lovingly  to  every  industrious  touch. 

Man,  himself,  is  the  robber  and  despoiler  of  his  brother's 
rights  and  just  reward  of  toil,  and  the  Constitution,  which 
was  intended  for  the  protection  of  all,  is  perverted  to  help 
him  do  it. 

The  perversion  consists  in  telling  men  they  may  alienate 
these  rights  and  they  have  attempted  to  do  it.  I  say,  "at- 
tempted" because,  as  a  matter  of  law,  it  cannot  be  done, 
though  the  attempt  has  produced  practically  the  same  effect 
as  if  it  could,  since  so  few,  if  any,  actually  enjoy  them.  But 
the  loss  of  enjoyment  is  only  temporary,  for,  when  they 
awake,  which  they  are  sure  to  do  sometime,  they  will  discover 
that  the  word  inalienable  in  the  fundamental  law,  means  some- 
thing; that  their  attempt  was  futile  because  alienation  is  im- 
possible, and  then  they  will  take  steps  to  reclaim  and  recover 
their  own  and  keep  it. 

Most  people  may  not  at  the  present  time  agree  with  me,  al- 
though I  have  no  fear  but  they  will  eventually,  when  I  say  the 
word  "inalienable"  was  put  in  the  Constitution  expressly 
to  prevent  any  man  from  depriving  himself,  and  to  prevent 
others,  by  any  means,  process  or  proceeding,  or  in  any  man- 
ner or  on  any  pretext  whatever  from  doing  it,  of  his  right  to 
pursue  and  obtain  safety  and  happiness  and  enjoy  and  de- 
fend life  and  liberty  and  acquire,  possess  and  protect  suffici- 
ent property  to  enable  him  to  do  so. 

By  the  way,  let  me  ask  your  opinion.  AVhat  was  the  ob- 
ject of  the  clause  about  "acquiring,  possessing  and  protect- 
ing property?" 

Was  it  to  put  property  above  life  and  happiness,  or,  to  help 
secure  life  and  happiness? 

If  it  was  to  help  secure  life  and  happiness,  was  it  for  all? 

If  for  all,  why  do  the  courts  construe  it  so  a  few  can  get 
all  the  property? 

If  the  possession  of  a  great  deal  of  property  by  some  is  nec- 
essary to  help  secure  their  lives  and  happiness,  is  not  the 
possession  of  some  property  by  all  necessary  to  help  them 
secure  tlieir  lives  and  happiness;  or  are  the  property  pos- 
sessions of  some  more  sacred  than  the  lives  and  happiness  of 
all? 

In  view  of  property  conditions  as  they  actually  exist,  it 
would  seem  that  most  people  might  properly  stop  and  enquire 
"where  they  are  at." 

Nature,  itself,  which  favors  life  until  time,  in  due  course, 
brings  on  decay,  suggests  this  intrepretation  because  it  puts 
the  Constitution  in  harmony  with  natural  law,  which  it  must 
be  presumed  was  intended. 

I  would  also  say  that,  when  the  Constitution  savs  all  men. 


THE  WAY  OUT.  117 

it  does  not  mean  only  a  few  men  have  these  inalienable  rights, 
also  that  the  manner  of  depriving  men  of  them  is  not  ma- 
terial, but  the  fact  of  depriving  them  is. 

Now,  as  the  enjoyment  of  these  rights  must  depend  upon 
properly  directed  efforts  to  obtain  it,  if  men  by  honest  labor, 
make  the  proper  effort  and  others  deprive  them  of  just  wages 
for  that  labor,  the  result  is,  necessarily,  to  deprive  them  of 
that  enjoyment  to  their  detriment,  and  since  whatever  works 
a  detriment  to  the  individual  necessarily  works  a  detriment 
to  society,  it  follows  that  the  thing  detrimental  to  the  indi- 
vidual is  not  authorized  by  the  Constitution  because  the  ob- 
ject of  the  Constitution  is  the  preservation  of  society.  There- 
fore, in  the  matter  of  wages,  we  are  bound  to  conclude  that 
the  withholding  of  just  wages,  is  clearly  prohibited,  no  mat- 
ter whether  men  seeking  employment  are  plentiful  or  scarce. 

The  abundance  or  scarcity  of  men  has  nothing  whatever 
to  do  with  the  principle  involved,  nor  has  the  so-called  law  of 
supply  and  demand. 

Tlie  real  principle  involved  is,  the  right  of  society  to  its 
own  preservation,  and.  as  that  is  the  object  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, it  cannot  be  construed  to  sanction  any  conduct  that 
"vvo.uld  defeat  it. 

Wages,  equivalent  to  a  decent  living,  are  necessary  to  en- 
able every  wage  earner  to  enjoy  these  rights,  and  unless  he 
enjoys  them,,  he  cannot  develop  the  degree  of  manhood  his 
natural  endowments  had  authorized,  and  Avhich  the  Constitu- 
tion meant  every  man  should  have  the  opportunity  of  de- 
veloping when  it  made  his  right  to  enjoy  and  defend  life  and 
liberty,  acquire,  possess  and  protect  property  and  obtain 
safety  and  happiness,  INALIENABLE. 

But  when  I  say  the  Constitution  clearh^  pi'ohibits  the  pay- 
ment of  less  than  just  wages,  it  must  be  understood  that  the 
ability  of  the  employer  to  pay,  is  proper  to  be  considered, 
because  he  is  also  a  part  of  society  and  the  welfare  of  society 
as  much  demands  his  protection  as  it  does  the  protection  of 
his  employes. 


118  THE  WAY  OUT. 

THE  RIGHTS  OF   SOCIETY   AND    OF  INDIVIDUALS. 
EQUAL  RIGHTS. 

No  person  is  outside  of  Society,  therefore,  no  person  is  ex- 
empt from  obedience  to  such  restraints  as  Society,  for  its  own 
welfare,  sees  fit  to  put  upon  him.  This  rule  undelies  and  is 
necessary  to  the  welfare  of  Society ;  we  might  say,  is  the 
law  of  its  existence. 

Each  individual  must  yield  and  surrender  up  for  the  good 
of  all  such  of  his  rights  as  will  give  to  all  equal  rights. 

Equal  rights  to  all  and  a  knoiiiedge  hy  all  that  all  actually 
enjoy  equal  rights,  are  the  only  conditions  that  can  ever  be 
relied  on  to  stamp  out  discontent  among  good  people,  in  any 
government. 

When  those  conditions  prevail,  only  those  people  who  are 
dominated  by  selfishness,  and  want  special  privileges,  will  be 
discontented. 

When  I  use  the  words  ''equal  rights,"  I  do  not  think  of 
them  as  meaning  what  men  in  every  day  affairs  say  they 
mean;  they  say  they  mean  the  equal  right  of  one  man  with 
every  other  man  to  hunt  a  job  and  take  it  or  refuse  it  as  he 
sees  fit  at  any  price  he  sees  fit,  without  any  interference  from 
anybody;  they  think  of  them  as  meaning  the  equal  right  of 
one  man  with  every  other  man  to  set  up  in  any  kind  of  busi- 
ness he  sees  fit  and  compete  for  patronage;  and,  in  general, 
they  think  of  them  as  allowing  every  man  an  equal  ridit  and 
opportunity  with  every  other  man  to  try  to  exclusively  own, 
possess  and  control  as  much  as  possible  of  all  there  is  on  the 
earth,  in  the  earth  or  above  it. 

These  they  call  "equal  rights,"  because,  they  say,  every 
man  is  on  an  equality  with  every  other  to  try  for  the  same 
job,  the  same  patronage,  the  same  prosperity  (?)  and  the 
same  ownership,  possession  and  control;  and  it  don't  matter 
who  wins  or  goes  to  the  wall,  they  all  have  an  equal  right  to 
get  or  try  to  get;  all  enter  the  race  relying  on  their  confidence 
in  themselves  to  succeed  and  those  M^ho  fail  only  meet  the  fate 
they  had  planned  for  others.  It  is  rough,  they  say,  but  is 
equal  rights;  that  is,  you  and  I  have  an  equal  right  to  strusr- 
gle  with  each  other  to  get  the  most,  even  more  than  we  need, 
and  leave  the  other  with  nothing.  That  is  equal  rights.  I  have 
a  right  to  get  control  of  everything  if  I  can  and  make  you 
work  for  me  and  you  have  the  same  right  to  get  control  and 
make  me  work  for  you.  That  is  equal  rights.  If  I  can  ac- 
quire the  earth  and  lease  enough  of  it  to  you  to  let  you  make 
a  living  for  us  both,  that  is  my  right  and  privilege,  and^  as 
you  have  the  right  and  privilege  of  acquiring  it  and  leasing 
"enough  to  me  to  let  me  make  a  living  for  us  both,  that  is  equal 
rights.    And  so,  e(|ual  rights  have  come  to  mean  no  more  than 


THE  WAY  OUT.  119 

simply  the  right  of  the  weak  to  live,  if  they  are  able  to  com- 
pete with  the  strong,  and  the  right  of  the  honest  to  live,  if 
they  can  do  so  in  competition  with  the  dishonest. 

But  what  kind  of  equal  rights  are  these  ? 

It  is  claimed — particularly  by  such  organizations  as  the 
"Citizens'  Alliance,"  "Manufacturers'  Association"  and 
"Civic  Federation,"  who  have  taken  pains  to  emphasize  it, — 
that  they  are  Constitutional  rights,  but,  is  it  so?  If  they  are, 
the  Constitution  should  specify  them,  but  it  does  not. 

The  Declaration  of  Independence  'ind  Constitution  of  Cali- 
fornia declare  that  all  men  have  an  inalienable  right  to  Life, 
Liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  Happiness.  Tliese  are  equal 
rights,  Constitutional  rights  and  substantial  rights ;  but,  do  the 
competitive  so-called  rig-hts  championed  by  those  organiza- 
tions promote  and  secure  these  substantial  rights,  or,  do  they 
undermine'  and  destroy  them  ? 

They  amount  to  this  and  nothing  more,  namely:  an  equal 
right  in  all  men  by  cnmraereial  methods  to  destroy  each  other, 
and  everybody  knows  it  is  being  don^'.  All  almshouses, 
asylums  and  prisons  are  nothing  but  receiving  homes  for  the 
moral  or  physical  wrecks  of  men  and  women  these  un-con- 
stitutional  and  mis-named  rights  those  organizations  stand 
for,  leave  strewn  along  their  commercial  trail. 

When  they  are  denied  and  wiped  out,  these  evidences  of 
wrongs  done  in  the  name  of  right,  will  disappear. 

Nothing  is  or  ever  can  be  a  right  which  militates  against 
the  Constitutional  right  of  all  men  to  enjoy  Life,  Liberty, 
Security  and  Happiness. 


120  THE  WAY  OUT. 


HAS  SOCIETY  A  RIGHT  TO  WIPE  THEM  OUT? 

Society  has  a  right  to  do  anything  that  is  necessary  to  pre- 
serve itself,  and  whatever  one  of  its  members  is  doing  that  is 
against  its  welfare  it  has  a  right  to  interfere  and  put  a 
stop  to. 

The  welfare  of  all  being  superior  to  the  welfare  of  any 
one,  the  all  may  .justly  restrain  the  one  for  the  good  of  all : 
and  the  same  is  true  of  the  right  of  all  with  reference  to  the 
conduct  of  any  private  association'^  company  or  corporation. 

The  preservation  of  society  is  the  only  reason  or  necessity 
for  or  object  of  any  law;  and  as  society  is  composed  of  indi- 
viduals, it  cannot  preserve  itself  unless  it  preserves  them,  for 
without  them  it  can  have  no  existence. 

Therefore,  society  can  make  no  law  nor  tolerate  any  con- 
duct that  is  destructive  of  the  individual  (unless  it  is  to  pre- 
serve itself)  without  at  the  same  time  doing  or  tolerating 
something  that  is  destructive  of  itself. 

As  society  is  dependent  for  its  existence  upon  its  mem- 
bers, so  its  members  are  dependent  for  their  existence  upon 
society. 

Now,  if  society  knowingly  permits  some  of  its  members  to 
destroy  others,  having  the  power  to  stop  them,  is  it  not  the 
same  as  if  it  was  done  by  its  command? 

Does  it  do  that?    Let  us  see. 

To  preserve  itself,  it  has  prohibited  the  unlawful' killing 
of  another,  and  murder  is  the  chief  of  this  class  of  offenses. 

]\[urder  is  done  by  using  some  kind  of  violence,  as  shoot- 
ing, stabbing,  poisoning,  strangling,  etc.,  and  society  is  al- 
ways on  the  lookout  with  its  sheriffs,  constables  and  policemen 
to  prevent  it  and  catch  the  murderer;  but  are  there  not  other 
and  less  merciful  ways  of  killing  people  than  with  knives, 
pistols  or  poisons  or  iDy  strangling  them,  or  with  violence  of 
any  kind  and  that  are  as  reprehensible  as  the  average  murder? 
It  is  constantly  being  done  and  the  motive  is  the  same,  for 
money,  and  society  knows  it.  It  also  knows  who  does  it  and 
how  they  do  it.  Yet  it  is  not  on  the  lookout  with  its  officers  to 
catch  them  or  even  to  stop  them. 

It  has  the  power  to  do  so  but  refuses  to  interfere  either  for 
its  own  protection  or  the  protection  of  its  members;  on  the 
other  hand  it  countenances  and  encourages  them  in  it. 

It  knows  that  men  are  killing  each  other,  and  their  wives 
and  children,  all  the  time,  not  by  violence,  but  gradually — 
though  deliberately — ^by  ovei-working,  underpaying  and  sub- 
jecting them  to  every  manner  of  privation,  extortion  and  op- 
pression. That  through  indifference,  negligence,  and  want  of 
proper  care  and  caution  they  are  takinsr  the  lives  of  thou- 
sands annually.  It  knows,  too,  that  this  sacrifice  of  life  is  not 
due  to  any  desire  on  the  part  of  these  guilty  of  causing  it  to 


THE   WAY   OUT.  121 

promote  the  public  welfare,  but  solely  to  promote  their  own 
individual  welfare. 

Now,  are  these  things  not  crimes,  both  against  the  indi- 
divual  and  society?  If  not,  what  are  they?  If  they  are,  in 
what  relation  to  them  does  society  stand?     Is  it  innocent? 

They  are  committed  in  the  name  of  commerce,  but  what, 
besides  private  gain,  furnishes  the  motive  ?  What,  besides 
private  gain,  furnishes  the  motive  to  overwork,  underpay, 
starve,  extort  and  oppress  hired  men?  "What  motive  but  pri- 
vate gain  puts  conscience  to  sleep  and  suggests  the  indiffer- 
ence, neglect  and  want  of  care  and  caution  that  kills  thou- 
sands ? 

The  necessities  of  commerce  are  made  use  of  to  excuse  these 
crimes,  but  we  know  that  neither  the  necessities  of  commerce 
nor  any  public  necessity  ever  demands,  nor  can  either  ever 
excuse,  any  conduct  that  sacrifices  human  life  to  make  money. 
And  if  public  necessity  cannot  .justify  it,  how  can  private 
gain  do  it? 

Private  gain  is  never  superior  to  public  necessity,  although 
it  is  often  made  to  appear  so. 

Private  individuals  and  companies  are  permitted  in  the 
ways  mentioned  to  wrong,  rob  and  sacrifice  millions  of  hired 
men  in  the  pursuit  of  private  gain,  but  is  there  any  differ- 
ence in  principle  between  them  and  the  man  who,  in  the  pur- 
suit of  private  gain,  robs  or  murders  another  on  the  highway? 

How  can  society  justify  itself  in  excusing  one  and  sending 
the  other  to  jail  or  the  gallows? 

When  our  statesmen,  courts,  press  and  the  labor  unions 
uphold  the  right  of  a  man  to  sell  his  labor  in  the  open  market 
for  any  price  he  pleases,  they  are  not  upholding  any  funda- 
mental principle  of  right,  they  are  simply  helping  to  keep 
alive  and  perpetuate  a  bit  of  sentimentalism,  a  superstition, 
one  that  gave  rise  to  all  those  wrongs  and  which  still  is  daily 
sacrificing  men,  women  and  children  to  satisfy  some  one's 
greed ;  that  impoverishes  them,  degrades  them  and  gradu- 
ally destroys  them  and  therefore  impoverishes,  degrades  and 
destroys  society  itself. 

They  are  upholding  the  right  of  the  individual  to  preserve 
himself  at  the  expense  of  society  and  everywhere  we  see  him 
seeking  to  do  it.  The  result  is,  the  individual  and  society 
are  constantly  at  war  with  each  other. 

Surely  no  argument  is  necessary  to  convince  anyone  that 
this  is  all  wrong,  for  any  conduct  on  the  part  of  the  indi- 
vidual that  has  the  effect  to  destroy  society  must  have  the 
effect  to  destroy  him,  and  any  policy  of  society  that  has  the 
effect  to  destroy  the  individual  must  have  the  effect  to  destroy 
itself. 

Harmony  is  life  and  happiness  for  both,  inharmony  is 
misery  and  death  for  both. 

It  cannot  be  doubted  that  there  is,  somewhere,  an  absolutely 
just  limit  to  the  rights  of  individuals  and  the  rights  of  so- 
ciety in  every  possible  relation  they  can  be  placed  in  to  each 


122  THE  WAY  OUT. 

other ;  and  to  the  exact  extent  that  this  is  ever  discovered  and 
acted  on,  harmony  and  happiness  among  the  people  will  be  the 
certain  result. 

That  just  limit  has  been  the  subject  of  legislation,  litiga- 
tion, insurrection  and  war,  ever  since  the  beginning  and  is 
not  settled  yet. 

Legislatures,  Constitutional  conventions,  courts  and  arm- 
ies are  still  occupied  in  trying  to  solve  it.  The  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  and  of  most  of  the  States  has  been 
amended  from  time  to  time  to  conform  to  the  latest  convic- 
tions of  the  people  relative  to  rights  of  ivhich  the  individual 
may  not  he  justly  deprived  in  securing  the  ivelfare  of  soci- 
ety, and  the  whole  scope  and  range  of  the  duties  of  legisla- 
tures and  courts  may  be  properly  measured  by  that  subject 
alone. 

To  declare  such  rights  (for  they  have  always  existed)  and 
enforce  them  is  the  only  object  or  excuse  for  the  creation  or 
existence  of  legislatures  or  courts. 

And  is  it  such  a  difficult  matter? 

It  would  seem  so,  at  least  they  pretend  it  is ;  and  if  we  judge 
of  it  by  the  insurrections  and  wars  that  history  tells  us  have 
been  waged  in  behalf  of  human  rights;  by  the  parliaments, 
congresses  and  other  legislative  bodies — by  whatever  name — 
that  have  met  and  discussed  them;  by  the  courts,  great  and 
small,  that  have  sat  to  determine  them ;  by  the  law  books  that 
have  been  written  splitting  hairs  about  them;  by  the  sermons 
preached  and  prayers  offered  to  induce  God  to  reveal  them ; 
by  the  jails  and  prisons  built  to  hold  the  men  who  registered 
their  protests  against  existing  conditions  and  hardships  by 
defying  law  and  committing  crimes  and  misdemeanors  to  get 
their  share  of  them;  and,  finally,  by  the  money  spent  in  a 
fruitless  search  for  them,  leaving  every  man  as  insecure  as 
ever  in  the  enjoyment  of  his  inalienable  right  to  life,  liberty 
and  happiness,  and  with  discontent  still  disturbing  the  peace 
of  the  world,  we  would  naturally  conclude  it  must  be  a  dif- 
jficult  matter. 

But,  after  all,  is  it? 

Before  the  obstacle  in  the  way  of  general  happiness  and 
peace  can  ever  be  removed,  it  is  necessary,  first,  to  agree  on 
what  it  is,  and,  second,  how  to  remove  it. 

As  to  the  first — the  obstacle — that  is  apparent. 

It  is  nothing  more  or  less  than  the  selfishness  of  man. 

All  the  wars,  all  the  legislatures,  all  the  courts,  all  the  law 
books,  all  the  sermons  and  prayers,  all  the  prisons,  all  the 
crimes  and  all  the  money  spent,  have  been  necessary  because 
of  that  one  thing,  the  selfishness  of  man. 

Isn't  it  perfectly  astounding  to  think  of  it,  to  think  that 
such  a  simple  thing  should  have  been  the  cause  of  so  much 
fuss? 

Yet  it  is  true.  It  is  the  only  thing  that  has  ever  stood  in 
the  door  of  freedom  and  denied  to  men,  ^vomen  and  children 


THE  WAY  OUT.  123 

their  equal  right  to  enter  and  enjoy  Life,  Liberty,  Security 
and  Happiness  or  that  does  it  now. 

But  how  will  selfishness  ever  be  taken  out  of  a  man  with- 
out killing  him? 

It  is  not  necessary  to  express  an  opinion  about  that,  be- 
cause it  is  possible  to  let  him  live  with  all  his  selfishness  and 
still  secure  to  every  human  being  every  right  that  any  other 
human  being  rightfully  enjoys. 

One  principle  covers  the  whole  ground  of  the  remed3%  and 
all  that  is  lacking  to  secure  the  rights  is,  for  society  to  "take 
the  bull  by  the  horns"  and  say  it  will  adopt  it  and  enforce 
it,  and  then,  do  it. 

No  man,  except  he  who  is  not  ready  to  be  denied  the  privi- 
lege of  gratifying  his  selfishness,  will  dispute  its  correctness. 

The  principle  is  this : 

Fix  things  so  when  one's  selfishness  wrongs  another,  it  shall 
not  benefit  him,  and  he  won't  do  it. 

"But,"  you  ask,  "can  that  be  done?" 

In  answering  you,  if  you  say,  "it  would  be  right,"  I 
would  say: 

AVhatever  is  right  is  possible,  and  that  alone  should  en- 
courage all  who  want  things  right,  to  keep  at  it  until  it  is 
done. 

As  to  how  it  may  be  done,  I  will  express  myself  later  in  this 
book.    *See  "The  Motive  of  Selfishness,"  page  154. 


124  THE  WAY  OUT. 


HOW   THE    EXERCISE    OF   THIS   ALLEGED   RIGHfT 
DID  THE  MISCHIEF. 

AYHERE  PRIVATE  FORTUNES  CATHIE  FROM. 

I  have  already  said :  every  dollar  that  is  invested  in  all  the 
railroads,  street  car  lines,  telegraph  and  telephone  lines,  ships 
and  steamers,  canals,  big"  mills,  factories,  mines,  buildings, 
tools  and  machinery  on  earth,  came  from  profits  on  the  hired 
man's  labor;  that  is,  they  represent  the  total  wages  he  earned 
and  should  have  received,  but  did  not  get.  It  took  a  long  time 
to  accumulate  from  his  wages  the  vast  sums  necessary  to  build' 
and  equip  all  these  things  as  we  see  them  today,  yet,  that  is 
where  tlie  money  came  from  that  did  it. 

Those  things  represent  the  difference  between  what  the 
hired  man  has  been  paid  as  wages  and  the  value  of  what  he 
has  produced.  The  fortunes  put  into  them  began  to  accumu- 
late with  the  first  hired  man.  The  next  one  increased  them 
and  they  went  oji  increasing  in  proportion  as  the  number  of 
hired  men  increased  until  the  difference  between  the  amount 
that  has  been  paid  to  hundreds  of  millions  of  them  in  wages 
in  the  course  of  time,  and  the  value  of  what  they  have  nro- 
duced,  exactly  equals  the  vast  money  capital  which  all  those 
things  now  represent. 

Now,  before  you  go  any  further,  I  wish  you  to  stop  and  see 
if  vou  have  got  that  fact  through  your  head. 
What  fact? 

The  fact  that  every  private  fortune  was  built  up  out  of 
profits  on  hired  men's  labor.  That  there  is  not  a  single  pri- 
vate fortune,  anywhere,  that  is  not  made  up  of  wages  hired 
men  were  beat  out  of  one  way  and  another. 

You  must  not  drift  away  from  the  point  to  defend  men  who 
started  enterprises  that  furnished  work  for  others  and  got 
rich  themselves,  by  saying  they  are  entitled  to  all  they  made ; 
I  am  not  talking  about  that  just  now,  or  I  might  ([uestion 
your  conclusion  and  give  you  some  arguments  that  would 
bother  you  to  refute. 

For  the  present  I  wish  you  to  either  admit  or  deny  the 
particular  fundamental  fact  that  all  private  fortunes  are 
composed  of  nothing  else  but  profits  on  the  labor  of  hired 
men;  in  other  words,  of  the  wages  they  earned  but  which 
were  never  paid  over  to  them.  If  you  take  that  for  a  starting 
point,  it  will  be  easier  to  see  the  mischief  that  has  come  from 
admitting  the  right  of  men  to  sell  their  labor  in  the  open 
market  for  any  price  they  pleased.  If  you  deny  it,  then  tell 
us  where  the  fortunes  came  from. 

Of  course  employers  were  always  looking  out  to  hire  the 
cheapest  men  who  could  fill  the  places,  and  gradually,  higher 


THE   AY  AY   OUT.  125 

priced  men  were  discharged  to  go  and  hunt  for  other  jobs  and 
compete  with  other  hired  men  to  get  them. 

The  savings  in  wages,  made  the  average  employer  richer 
and  richer,  and  the  loss  of  them,  made  the  average  hired  man 
poorer  and  i)Oorer. 

The  employer  used  the  wealth  he  had  accumulated  from  the 
wages  of  his  hired  men  to  increase  his  business.  If  he  was 
a  manufacturer,  he  enlarged  his  plant  and  put  in  more  and 
better  machinery,  (that  is,  improved  machinery  which  took 
the  places  and  caused  the  discharge  of  more  men,  who  had 
to  go  out  and  compete  with  others)  combined  with  some  of  its 
competitors,  crowded  out  the  rest,  got  a  monopoly  and  made 
it  impossible  for  any  of  his  discharged  hands  or  anybody  else 
with  small  means,  to  engage  in  the  same  .business.  Thus, 
he  grew  richer  still  and  kept  it.  He  did  not  use  it  to  pay  bet- 
ter wages,  but  used  some  of  it  to  force  hired  men  who  were 
selling  their  labor  in  the  open  market  in  competition  with  each 
other  for  any  price  they  pleased,  to  accept  his  price  because 
they  could  do  no  better.  They  had  to  have  work  and  had  to 
work  for  him,  and  buy  his  goods  at  his  price  because  he  con- 
trolled the  situation  in  all  directions. 

Others  put  the  money  they  made  from  the  wages  of  hired 
men  into  land  until  they  owned  it  all.  Some  gobbled  timber 
lands,  others  oil  lands,  others  coal  lands,  others  mineral  lands, 
others  grazing  lands,  water  rights  and  farm  lands;  others 
railroads  and  so  on  until  all  the  natural  resources  of  the  earth 
and  all  the  methods  of  production  and  distribution  got  into 
their  hands  and  beyond  the  reach  of  any  man  who  works  for 
wages. 

Where  did  they  get  the  money  to  do  all  this  ?  They  got  ill 
from  the  profits  on  hired  men's  labor.  Hired  men  insisted  on 
the  right  to  sell  their  labor  for  any  price  they  pleased  and  to 
compete  with  each  other  for  work,  and  as  a  consequence,  did 
not  get  all  it  was  worth.  Their  employers  got  it  and  used  it  to 
gobble  the  earth;  and  now  that  they  have  it,  and  got  it  by 
the  very  wealth  the  hired  man  himself  produced,  he  must 
go  on  working  for  wages  and  never  own  or  control  anything 
except  what  the  capitalists  and  monopolists  he  has  created, 
say  he  may.  And  more  than  that,  he  must  work  for  the  wages 
they  choose  to  pay ;  and  still  more,  he  must  give  them  all  back 
again  to  them  for  the  food  he  eats,  the  clothes  he  wears  and 
the  house  they  let  him  live  in.  In  short,  they  just  loan  him 
what  he  gets  for  a  few  days  or  weeks  and  then  demand  and 
get  it  all  back  for  what  he  consumes.  He  is  allowed  the  pleas- 
ure of  jingling  it  in  his  pocket  and  looking  at  it  for  a  while 
and  that  is  about  all.    He  is  not  allowed  to  keep  it. 

For  ages  he  has  sold  his  labor  for  any  price  he  pleased, 
and,  by  competing  with  his  fellows,  has  cut  wages  down  and 
down  until  he  can  scarcely  exist. 

By  the  same  proceeding  he  has  been  the  instrument  that 
has  concentrated  all  stored  up  wealth  (which  represents  noth- 
ing but  his  wages  he  didn't  get)  in  the  hands  of  his  employ- 


126  THE  WAY  OUT. 

ers;  and  they  have  fortified  tlieir  possession  of  it  with  laws, 
courts,  sheriffs  and  soldiers  and  now  laugh  at  his  helpless 
condition.  Still,  he  says,  when  he  upholds  his  right  to  sell 
his  labor  in  the  open  market  for  any  price  he  pleases,  that  he 
is  doing  right. 

It  don't  matter  how  you  look  at  it,  that  is.  from  what  stand- 
point or  direction,  it  simmers  down  finally  to  this  fact,  that 
eveiything  there  is  outside  of  nature  and  what  individuals 
have  produced  with  their  own  hands  was  paid  for  or  is  being 
paid  for  by  the  hired  man.  No  matter  what  it  consists  of, 
what  it  is,  or  who  has  it  or  claims  it  or  by  what  means,  pro- 
cess or  proceeding  he  got  it,  it  came  out  of  the  hired  man ;  that 
is,  he  and  he  alone  footed  the  bill  or  is  footing  it  now  every 
day  he  works. 

God  pity  him !  In  his  ignorance  of  principles  that  under- 
lie hi«  welfare,  he  has  been  doing  the  wrong  thing  and  still 
insists  on  doing  it.  He  laid  the  foundation  long  ago  for  his 
own  undoing  and  refuses  to  rip  it  up.  Will  he  ever  wake  up, 
I  wonder,  about  face  and  use  his  ballot  to  free  himself? 


THE  WAY  OUT.  127 


WHO  UPHOLD  THE  WRONG. 

The  courts,  press,  our  statemen  and  even  the  labor  unions, 
so  far  as  I  know,  uphold  the  wrong  that  a  man  has  a  right  to 
sell  his  labor  in  the  open  market;  that  is,  for  any  price  he 
pleases. 

They  all,  at  the  same  time,  uphold  the  doctrine  that  the  in- 
terest of  the  individual  is  of  less  consequence  than  the  inter- 
est of  society,  and  society  has  a  right  at  all  times  to  say  "halt" 
to  the  individual  whenever,  wherever  or  however  his  con- 
duct injuriously  affects  its  welfare. 

It  is  easy  to  understand  why  they  should  uphold  the  right 
of  society  to  say  "halt"  to  the  individual  when  his  conduct 
is  injurious  to  its  welfare,  because  it  is  a  fundamental  rule 
that  the  rights  of  the  individual  are,  in  no  instance,  equal  to 
the  rights  of  all,  on  the  contrary,  the  rights  of  all  are,  in  every 
instance,  superior  to  the  rights  of  anyone. 

It  is  not  easy,  however,  to  understand  why  they  should  con- 
tinue to  uphold  the  doctrine  that  a  man  has  a  right  to  sell  his 
labor  in  the  open  market  for  any  price  he  pleases,  because  the 
exercise  of  it  has  proven  to  be  and  is  decidedly  injurious  to 
the  welfare  of  society,  and  it  cannot  therefore  be  a  right.  If 
it  is  a  right,  it  must  be  so  because  it  underlies  the  welfare  of 
society  and  could  not  be  taken  away  without  in  some  manner 
depriving  society  of  something  necessary  to  its  welfare. 

If  it  can  be  shown  that  the  welfare  of  society  would  be 
promoted  by  taking  the  alleged  right  away,  that  must  con- 
clusively prove  it  to  be  a  fundamental  wrong. 

If  it  involves  any  principle  conducive  to  society's  welfare, 
what  is  it  ?  It  does  not  and  cannot.  It  is  impossible,  for  the 
reason  that  the  exercise  of  it  always  conduces  to  the  Avelfare 
of  the  few  at  the  expense  of  the  many,  and  that  can  never  be 
for  society's  welfare. 

But  do  not  the  labor  unions  contend  for  the  principle  that 
no  man  has  a  right  to  sell  his  labor  in  the  open  market  for  any 
price  he  pleases?  I  was  asked.  No,  they  do  not.  They  con- 
tend just  as  earnestly  as  the  capitalists  do  that  it  is  every 
man's  right,  and  confine  their  energies  to  persuading  men 
not  to  use  it,  and  right  there  is  where  they  make  a  serious 
fundamental  mistake.  Instead  of  admitting  the  right  they 
should  squarely  and  boldly  deny  it  and  fight  their  battles  for 
fair  wages  from  that  standpoint. 

By  admitting  and  upholding  the  right  they  not  only  do 
what  the  capitalists  want  them  to  do,  but  they  admit  and 
uphold  a  fundamental  wrong  instead  of  right,  and  subject 
themselves  justly  to  the  accusations  of  inconsistency.  Men 
would  join  the  imions  more  readily  but  for  the  notion  they 
have  that  in  doing  so  they  would  be  surrejidering  a  right 
which  the  unions,  themselves,  concede  belongs  to  them. 


128  THE  WAY  OUT. 

Their  inconsistency  in  upholding  the  right  while  trying  to 
get  men  to  join  them  and  pledge  themselves  to  not  use  it,  is 
confusing.  It  seems  to  them,  or  many  of  them,  that  the  unions 
are  interfering  with  and  seeking  to  prohibit  the  exercise  of 
one  of  the  most  important  fundamental  rights  of  the  individ- 
ual ;  and,  so  long  as  they  feel  that  way  about  it,  it  is  to  be  ex- 
pected they  will  not  only  refiLse  to  join  a  union  but  will 
"scab"  every  chance  they  get. 

The  countiy  is  full  of  stiff-necked  good  men  of  that  kind 
who  go  a  great  deal  on  what  they  believe  to  be  their  rights. 
Men  who  would  make  valuable  and  reliable  union  men  if  con- 
vinced that  this  so-called  right  was  not  a  right,  and  would 
fight  just  as  hard  for  the  unions  as  they  now  do  against  them. 

As  they  now  look  at  it  they  think,  when  they  scab,  they  are 
doing  right,  because  justified  by  principle;  one,  the  unions 
admit,  namely,  the  right  of  every  man  to  sell  his  labor  in  the 
open  market  for  anj^  price  he  pleases. 

My  contention  is  that  no  man  has  that  right,  nor  did  he  ever 
have  it;  and  union  and  non-union  men,  on  that  proposition, 
are  fighting  each  other  about  nothing. 

At  one  time  it  was  permissible  for  a  man  to  sell  his  labor 
in  the  open  market  for  any  price  he  pleased  but,  it  never  was 
his  right  to  do  so.  At  that  time  competition  between  laboring 
men  had  not  forced  wages  down  to  a  point  below  the  cost  of 
living  properly  and  there  were  therefore  no  labor  unions.  None 
appeared  to  be  necessary  to  the  welfare  of  labor ;  so,  I  say,  the 
so-called  right  was  pei-missible.  People  often  permit  things 
that  are  not  right  because  they  do  not  see  or  feel  the  harm  they 
do,  or,  the  harm  is  so  slight  they  say  it  don't  amount  to  any- 
thing. They  may,  in  fact,  say  a  thing  is  right  that  is  wrong, 
because  they  do  not  see  or  feel  the  harm  it  does,  and  that  is  just 
what  has  happened  in  the  case  of  this  alleged  right.  People 
did  not  say  it  was  wrong  and  permit  it  because  the  harm  it  was 
doing  amounted  to  nothing ;  they  thought  it  was  right.  They 
thought  so  because  they  did  not  feel  or  see  the  harm. 

At  the  present  time  they  feel  it  and  feel  it  severely,  still 
they  do  not  see  or  realize  the  cause.  If  they  did,  I  would  have 
no  excuse  for  writing  this  book.  The  object  of  the  book  is 
to  make  them  see  the  cause  as  well  as  feel  the  harm,  and  when 
they  do,  they  will  stop  upholding  the  alleged  right,  and  do 
something  solid  in  the  way  of  bettering  their  condition  as 
well  as  society. 

"When  there  was  plenty  of  land,  plenty  of  room  and  plenty 
of  work,  and  a  man  sold  his  labor  for  any  price  he  pleased, 
everybody  naturally  concluded  it  was  his  own  business  and 
none  of  theirs,  because  nobody  besides  himself  appeared  to  be 
affected  if  he  was  not  fairly  paid.  They  reached  that  conclu- 
sion for  no  other  reason  than  that  they  did  not  themselves  feel 
or  see  the  harm  and  could  not  realize  the  harm  that  must  in- 
evitably result  to  others  from  permitting  him  to  do  it. 

The  harm  was  there,  but  it  had  to  grow  bigger  to  be  felt  or 
seen,  which  would  take  time.     It  has  at  last  grown  so  largt 


THE  WAY  OUT.  129 

that  everybody  feels  it.  It  looms  up  before  us  in  the  shape  of 
great,  private  fortunes  possessed  by  a  few. 

People  see  the  fortunes  but  do  not  realize  what  a  simple  lit- 
tle cause  gave  rise  to  them.  They  do  not  know  or  even  sus- 
pect that  the  seed  from  which  they  grew  was  the  so-called 
right  I  am  now  combatting,  or  that  every  private  fortune  came 
from  permitting  men  to  sell  their  labor  in  the  open  market 
for  any  price  they  pleased ;  that  when  they  did  so  they  got  less 
for  their  labor  than  they  should  have  got  and  the  portion  they 
failed  to  get  went  to  build  these  great  fortunes ;  that  the  for- 
tunes are  nothing  more  or  less  than  the  aggregate  of  the  little 
sums  which  millions  of  hired  men  have  contributed  during  all 
these  years  from  their  wages,  the  wages  they  ought  to  have 
got  but  did  not,  simply  because  they  sold  their  labor  in  com- 
petition with  each  other  in  the  open  market  for  any  price  they 
pleased,  rather  for  what  they  could  get  without  reference  to 
its  value,  and  which  they  were  obliged  to  agree  to  accept 
though  less  than  it  was  worth  because  they  had  to  live. 

Of  course  employers  always  took  advantage  of  those  con- 
ditions to  enrich  themselves  and  that  is  where  the  fortunes 
came  from. 

It  is  strange  but  it  is  true  that,  while  people  see  the  fortunes 
they  cannot  see  that  it  was  the  exercise  of  this  so-called  right 
alone  that  made  them  possible.  That  if  the  right  had  been 
denied  and  the  exercise  of  it  effectually  stopped,  great  private 
fortunes  would  have  been  impossible.  They  were  and  still 
are  "stone  blind"  to  this  self-evident  truth,  and  so,  if  they 
were  to  lose  the  supposed  right  now,  they  would  think  they 
liad  lost  something  of  priceless  value;  one  of  their  greatest 
fundamental  rights,  a  sacred  God-given  right  and  were  being 
swept  into  slavery.  The  truth  is,  however,  that,  if  it  was  taken 
away,  they  would  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  labor  be 
standing  in  the  open  door  that  leads  to  all  their  rights,  be- 
cause no  man  would  be  allowed  to  make  a  profit  on  another 
man's  labor;  and,  from  that  moment,  private  fortunes  would 
cease  to  grow  larger,  and  universal  prosperity  begin  to  cor- 
respondingly increase. 


130  THE  WAY  OUT. 


LABOR    UNIONS    STAND    FOR    A    GREAT    FUNDA- 
MENTAL PRINCIPLE. 

ONE  THAT  UNDERLIES  THE  WELFARE  OF  SOCIETY. 

They  are  opposed  by  what  is  believed  to  be  another  great 
fundamental  principle  but  which  is  no  principle  at  all. 

The  object  of  labor  unions  is,  to  secure  reasonable  wages, 
hours  and  conditions  for  hired  men,  and  reasonable  wages, 
hours  and  conditions  for  hired  men,  necessarily  concern  the 
welfare  of  society. 

Therefore,  labor  unions  stand  for  the  welfare  of  society. 

The  problem  the  unions  have  had  to  contend  with  has  been, 
how  to  attain  their  object? 

This  was  made  difficult  by  the  fact  that  the  prevailing  be- 
lief among  all  classes  has  been  and  still  is  that  men  have  a 
right  to  sell  their  labor  in  the  open  market  for  any  price  they 
please. 

Of  course,  if  that  right  belonged  to  men,  they  naturally 
wanted  to  exercise  it,  and  every  employer  naturally  wanted 
them  to  do  so,  and  as  the  courts  upheld  it,  the  unions  have  had 
a  pretty  hard  time  trying  to  convince  the  world  that  the  prin- 
ciple they  stand  for  should  in  any  manner  be  allowed  to  inter- 
fere with  that  principle,  nor  have  they  yet  succeeded  in  doing 
so. 

That  so-called  right  is  the  snag  they  have  run  up  against, 
that  they  are  up  against  now  and  will  stay  up  against  until 
they  make  up  their  minds  to  ignore  it.  It  is  the  thing  that 
stands  right  square  in  their  way  and  it  belongs  there  or  it 
does  not.  If  it  is  right,  it  belongs  there  and  they  can't  ignore 
it,  if  it  is  not,  they  can  and  must  before  they  will  succeed. 

So  far,  as  far  as  I  know,  they  have  not  tried  to  ignore  it, 
but  have  recognized  it  and  tried  to  get  along  by  simply  pur- 
suading  men  that  it  is  to  their  interest  to  waive  their  right, 
instead  of  persuading  them  that  they  have  no  such  right. 

The  whole  difficulty  lies  in  this  fact,  namely :  the  public 
regards  the  right  of  a  man  to  sell  his  labor  in  the  open  market 
for  any  price  he  pleases  as  a  great  fundamental  principle  that 
must  not  be  abridged,  and  attaches  a  great  deal  more  import- 
ance to  it  than  they  do  to  the  principle  the  unions  stand  for. 

As  a  matter  of  course,  that  being  the  state  of  public  opin- 
ion, the  unions  have  met  with  great  opposition  where  they 
would  have  met  with  none  if  the  public  had  looked  at  things 
rightly. 

If  they  had  looked  at  things  rightly,  they  would  have  seen 
that  what  the  unions  stand  for — reasonable  wages,  hours  and 
conditions  for  hired  men — represents  a  great  fundamental 
principle,  one  that  underlies  and  is  essential  to  the  welfare  of 
society,  and  that  the  one  they  have  attached  so  much  import- 


THE  WAY  OUT.  131 

ance  to, —  the  right  of  a  man  to  sell  his  labor  in  the  open 
market  for  any  price  he  pleases — represents  no  principle  at 
all,  fundamental  or  otherwise  and  is  of  no  importance  what- 
ever but  positively  destructive  of  the  welfare  of  society. 

The  truth  of  the  whole  matter  is  that,  the  unions  stand  for 
the  only  fundamental  principle  that  is  involved  and  the  other 
stands  for  nothing  except  slavery  and  misery. 

If  the  people  understood  this  would  there  be  any  doubl 
about  which  side  they  would  be  on? 

Strikes,  boycotts  and  lockouts  are  expedients,  they  settle  no 
principles. 

The  right  of  a  man  to  sell  his  labor  in  the  open  market  for 
any  price  he  pleases  has  been  so  strongly  intrenched  in  public 
sentiment  and  the  courts,  that  labor  unions  have  had  no  show 
whatever  to  secure  reasonable  wages,  hours  or  conditions,  when 
demanded  and  refused,  except  to  strike  or  boycott. 

Employers,  on  the  other  hand,  when  union  men  refused  to 
work  on  their  terms,  had  no  way  to  carry  on  their  business 
except  to  lock  them  out  and  go  into  the  open  market  and  hire 
others  willing  to  accept  the  rejected  terms  and  take  their 
places. 

In  striking,  union  men  have  depended  upon  the  open  market 
to  not  furnish  strike  breakers  while  employers  have  always 
depended  upon  it  to  furnish  them. 

The  open  market,  therefore,  was  always  an  enemy  to  be 
feared  by  unions  and  a  friend  to  be  relied  on  by  employers. 

The  unions  fought  for  a  principle,  the  employers  for  a 
profit,  and  the  men  in  the  open  market  for  just  themselves. 

As  there  never  was  any  law  or  court  either  union  or  em- 
ployer could  appeal  to,  both  had  to  resort  to  expedients.  The 
expedient  of  the  unions  has  been  the  strike  or  boycott  and  of 
employers,  the  lockout. 

A  fundamental  principle  was  always  involved  in  the  dis- 
pute but,  as  no  principle  was  relied  on  or  applied  to  settle  it, 
no  principle  was  settled  w^hen  one  of  the  parties  triumphed. 

It  was  merely  a  trial  of  strength — a  battle  of  resource  and 
endurance,  aud,  no  matter  which  won,  the  peace  lasted  only  so 
long  as  the  vanquished  felt  too  weak  to  renew  the  struggle. 
Nor  was  the  peace  secured  general  in  its  effects.  It  applied 
only  to  the  parties. 

A  strike,  boycott  or  lockout  has  never  settled  any  dispute 
except  for  the  time  and  place,  which  might  be  this  here  and 
that  there ;  this  today  and  that  tomorrow. 

Surely,  no  argument  is  necessary  to  show  that  these  fights 
are  not  in  harmony  with  the  public  welfare,  nor  can  any  argu- 
ment be  necessary  to  show  that  the  principle  the  unions  stand 
for  concerns  the  public  welfare ;  and  because  it  does,  no  argu- 
ment should  be  necessary  to  show  that  the  duty  the  public  owes 
to  itself  is  to  take  a  hand  and  substitute  law  for  these  expedi- 
ents. 

If  the  public  welfare  demands  that  hired  men  should  be 
paid  reasonable  wages,  and  that  they  should  not  be  obliged  to 


132  THE  WAY  OUT. 

work  unreasonabk  hours  or  under  unreasonable  conditions, 
and  I  can 't  think  any  one  is  so  blind  as  to  dispute  it,  then  the 
unions  stand  for  a  fundamental  principle  and  the  public  is 
bound  to  take  notice  of  its  efforts  and  help  it  by  adopting  some 
law  or  general  rule  of  procedure  by  which  all  disputes  rela- 
tive to  wages,  hours  and  conditions  of  labor  may  be  settled 
peaceably  and  not  force  either  union  or  employer  to  expedi- 
ents to  obtain  their  rights. 

So  far  as  labor  unions,  themselves,  are  concerned,  they  stand 
for  the  only  principle  in  regard  to  hired  men  and  their  relation 
to  society,  that  has  any  merit  whatever,  because  they  stand 
for  justice  to  them,  and  justice  to  them  signifies  the  welfare  of 
society,  therefore,  they  can  afford  to  hold  up  their  heads  and 
boldly  face  the  world  in  demanding  measures  to  help  enforce 
that  principle. 

They  can  afford  to  say  that  whatever  is  for  the  welfare  of 
society  is  right,  and  whatever  is  right  there  must  be  a  way 
to  obtain  that  is  in  harmony  witli  law  and  order. 

They  can  afford  to  say  no  way  is  or  can  be  in  harmony  with 
law  and  order  unless  it  respects  and  protects  the  equal  rights 
of  all,  and  that  is  the  way  we  shall  always  contend  for,  the 
way  we  shall  find  and  insist  upon  until  it  is  recognized  by  law. 

So  long  as  labor  unions  do  not  know  what  that  way  is,  or, 
knowing  it,  are  unable  to  make  use  of  it,  they  will  be  justified 
in  resorting  to  expedients.  But  when  they  have  found  it  and 
have  the  power  to  use  it  but  do  not,  then  they  are  no  longer 
justified. 

It  must  be  evident  to  all — unless  to  those  who  wish  to  make 
a  profit  on  their  labor — that  hired  men  have  a  right  to  be 
fairly  paid  and  treated,  and  if  no  law  is  adequate  to  secure 
these  rights  to  them,  they  have  the  right,  in  self-defense,  to 
adopt  any  expedient  that  will  fit  the  emergency. 

It  is  the  emergency  that  justifies  the  expedient,  not  a  prin- 
ciple, because  no  principle  is  solved  by  it.  It  is,  therefore, 
clear,  since  strikes,  boycotts  and  lockouts  solve  no  principle 
that,  in  the  end,  smething  must  take  the  place  of  them  that 
Avill,  in  order  to  bring  harmony  and  order  that  shall  be  en- 
during. 

'Expedients  can  never  bring  about  this  happy  state.  They 
sometimes  bring  relief — but  not  always,  nor  is  the  relief  they 
bring  ever  permanent.  It  lasts  for  only  a  little  while  and  then 
the  battle  is  renewed  and  must  be  fought  all  over  again,  at- 
tended always  with  disaster  to  those  immediately  concerned 
and  more  or  less  to  the  whole  country. 

The  strike  and  lockout  expedients  now  being  resorted  to  in 
Colorado,  where  union  men  are  being  driven  from  their  homes 
and  the  State  by  the  State  militia,  under  orders  from  a  gov- 
ernor (Peabody)  whom  they  probably  helped  to  elect,  is  a  fair 
sample  of  the  troubles  that  must  always  be  looked  for  to  ac- 
company the  expedient  method. 

The  whole  military  power  of  that  State  is  being  used  to  help 


THE  WAY  OUT.  133 

capitalists  in  their  fight  against  organized  labor,  because  capi- 
talists control  the  State  offices. 

By  the  way,  here  is  a  lesson  for  hired  men  and  unions, 
namely :  the  side  that  has  control  of  the  offices  is  hitched  to  the 
long  end  of  the  evener.  In  Colorado  it  appears  the  capitalists 
are  hitched  to  it  and  the  question  hired  men  should  ask  them- 
selves is — if  they  voted  to  help  hitch  them — will  they  do  it 
again  at  the  next  or  any  other  election? 

The  opposition  of  a  capitalistic  governor  to  the  Avishes  of  the 
unions  is  to  be  expected,  every  time,  if  their  wishes  oppose 
the  wishes  of  the  capitalist  class. 

When  the  miners  of  Colorado  resorted  to  the  usual  expedi- 
ent— the  strike— to  enforce  their  demands,  the  capitalists  met 
it  with  other  expedients,  which  their  control  of  the  offices  en- 
abled them  to  make  use  of,  and  it  will  always  be  that  way  when 
it  becomes  necessary,  so  long  as  their  friends  are  voted  into 
office  and  power.  Hence  the  question  as  to  who  laboring  men 
should  vote  for,  becomes  material,  but  I  shall  have  something 
to  say  of  this  later. 

There  being  no  law  in  Colorado  that  the  miners  could  ap- 
peal to,  to  try  the  justice  of  their  grievances  before  a  court 
and  jury,  they  had  no  alternative  but  to  yield  or  strike. 

To  yield  meant,  to  submit  to  what  they  believed  to  be  op- 
pression. To  strike  meant,  defiance  to  the  power  of  capital  and 
invite  every  privation  and  suffering,  a  merciless  money  grab- 
bing corporation  could  subject  them  to,  but,  brave  men  that 
they  were,  they  did  not  hesitate  to  choose  between  a  dishonor- 
able surrender  and  an  honorable  stand  against  wilful  wrongs, 
and  resorted  to  their  only  expedient,  the  strike. 

Of  course  a  strike  is  a  kind  of  force,  because,  when  the  men 
refused  to  work,  the  mines  were  forced  to  shut  down.  But 
what  was  the  action  of  the  mine  owners,  of  which  the  men  had 
complained,  but  force? 

If  the  mines  were  forced  to  shut  down  by  the  conduct  of  the 
men,  the  men  were  forced  to  strike  by  the  conduct  of  the 
owners. 

No  law  was  available  to  settle  the  simple  causes  of  the  trou- 
ble, but  the  owners  were  able  to  find  plenty  of  it  with  their 
tools  in  office  to  pei'vert  it  to  furnish  them  with  complex  ex- 
pedients to  meet  the  expedient  of  the  men. 

Their  first  expedient  was  to  starve  them  into  submission  and 
the  law  permitted  them,  without  a  protest,  to  try  it.  Their 
next  was,  to  fill  their  places  with  hungry  non-unirn  men  and 
no  law  rose  up  to  interfere  and  commancl  them  to  do  justice. 

When  these  failed,  their  final  expedient  was  to  get  the  loan 
of  the  militia  to  run  every  union  man  out  of  the  country  that 
refused  to  go  to  work  for  them  on  their  terms. 

So  I  say,  expedients  will  not  do  to  tie  to  for  a  remedy.  They 
are  expensive  and  demoralizing  and  settle  no  fundamental 
principle. 


134  THE  WAY  OUT. 


WHAT  MUST  TAKE   THE   PLACE  OF  EXPEDIENTS? 

There  can  be  but  one  answer  to  this  question,  namely :  law. 
The  great  bodies  that  comprise  the  universe  move  in  harmony 
because,  they  are  covered  by  law,  and  somen,  in  order  to  live 
in  harmony,  must  govern  their  industrial  relations  by  law,  not 
by  expedients;  and  the  harmony  they  enjoy  through  law  must 
always  depend  upon  the  moral  excellence  of  the  laws  that  gov- 
ern them. 

Now  notice.  I  am  not  advocating  the  way  to  remedy  labor 
troubles  that  IMr.  Roosevelt  and  the  preachers  rely  upon — ap- 
pealing to  the  hearts  of  employers  and  hired  men  to  be  good 
and  deal  fairly,  I  am  saying  and  saying  it  emphatically,  that 
they  never  will  be  good  or  deal  fairly  until  compelled  by  law 
to  do  so. 

Just  as  true  as  the  planetary  system  is  governed  by  force — 
law,  so  it  is  true  that,  at  present,  men  must  be  governed  by 
force — law.  And  it  is  self-evident  that  the  standard  of  moral 
excellence  of  the  laws  and  customs  that  govern  them,  must 
depend  upon  the  average  standard  of  moral  excellence  of  the 
individuals  composing  society.  If,  therefore,  it  is  desired  to 
raise  the  standard  of  government,  the  average  standard  of 
moral  excellence  of  individuals  must  first  be  raised. 


HOW  ARE  YOU  GOING  TO  RAIS'E  IT  ? 

The  first  thought  of  every  individual  is  how  to  provide  the 
physical  necessities  of  life;  and  his  interest  in  the  certainty 
of  obtaining  these  would  naturally  precede  his  interest  in  the 
method  of  obtaining  them;  and  it  is  the  method  of  obtaining 
them  that  primarily  involves  the  whole  scope  of  his  moral  ex- 
cellence. 

This  being  true — and  it  seems  to  me  to  be  self-evident —  the 
first  duty  of  the  advocates,  including  the  President  and  preach- 
ers, of  a  higher  standard  of  moral  excellence  in  men  is,  to  lay 
the  foundation  for  it  by  giving  them  a  feeling  of  security  that 
the  necessities  of  life  will  always  be  theirs  so  long  as  they  are 
willing  by  their  own  reasonable  exertions  to  produce  them. 

Under  the  present  system  of  getting  a  living  nobody  has 
that  feeling  of  security  nor  is  it  possible;  and  consequently, 
ever^'body  is  a  hard  subject  to  begin  on  to  raise  the  standard 
of  individual  moral  excellence. 

Society  thought  it  had  found  a  way  to  produce  a  feeling  of 
security  in  regai-d  to  the  physical  necessities  of  life  when  it 
invented  the  system  of  private  gain  and  still  thinks  it  will  do 
it,  but  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  it  is  impossible.  Instead 
it  produces  greater  in-security  because  it  makes  it  possible  for 
a  few  to  privately  gain  so  much  that  the  rest  can  have  no  feel- 
ing of  security  whatever. 


THE  WAY  OUT.  135 


PRIVATE    GAIN    ALWAYS    AT    THE    PUBLIC     EX- 
PENSE. 

Private  gain  is,  as  a  rule,  always  at  the  public  expense. 

Now,  as  I  am  liable  to  be  misunderstood  when  I  say  that,  I 
will  explain  what  I  mean  by  "public  expense." 

Private  gain  is  at  the  public  expense.  First,  when  one  person 
gains  more  than  he  needs  and  thereby  obliges  some  other  per- 
son to  do  with  less  than  he  needs. 

Second,  when  one  makes  a  profit  on  the  labor  of  another. 

Private  gain  at  the  public  expense  does  not  mean  simply, 
public  officials  who  rob  the  public ;  that  is  the  popular  idea 
but  it  is  not  the  right  idea. 

When  one  person  has  all  he  needs  and  then  tries  to  get  a 
portion  of  what  some  one  else  needs,  he  is  trying  to  get  some- 
thing at  the  public  expense.  Private  gain  is  all  right  and 
proper  until  it  reaches  that  point,  but  when  it  passes  that 
point  it  is  all  wrong. 

People  have  been  brought  up  to  think  they  have  an  un- 
doubted right  to  gain,  not  only  all  they  need  for  themselves, 
but  all  they  can,  that  everybody  else  needs;  and  they  have 
been  doing  that  so  long,  and  the  courts  have  so  long  been  up- 
holding them  in  it,  that  now  a  few  have  got  so  much  more  than 
they  need,  the  great  majority  of  the  people  are  unable  to  get 
as  much  as  they  need.  That  is  what  I  call  making  private  gain 
at  the  public  expense.  It  is  at  public  expense  because,  what 
the  few  have  too  much  of  the  general  public  have  too  little  of 
and  can't  get  it,  because  the  few  have  all  there  is  and  keep 
taking  the  most  of  the  rest  as  fast  as  it  is  produced. 

If  we  would  raise  the  standard  of  manhood  and  government, 
we  have  got  to  begin  by  wiping  out  these  fundamental  wrongs 
and  giving  all  a  show  to  have  their  share. 

The  welfare  of  society  demands  that  every  man  shall  enjoy 
Life,  Liberty,  Security  and  Happiness,  and  that  to  obtain 
these  he  needs  all  he  individually  produces.  I  do  not  mean 
that  he  will  eat  all  he  produces  but  that  what  he  does  not  need 
to  eat  he  needs  to  exchange  with  others  for  something  they 
have  produced  and  to  pay  his  share  of  the  public  expense. 

EVERY  MAN  HAS  A  RIGHT  TO  lilVE  DECENTLY. 

In  order  to  enjoy  Life,  Liberty  and  Happiness,  every  man 
has  not  only  a  right  to  live,  but  he  has  a  right  to  live  decently 
and  his  family  has  the  same  right;  and  no  man  or  family  can 
be  said  to  live  decently  without  plenty  of  good,  wholesome 
food,  comfortable  and  nice  clothing,  a  pretty  and  healthful 
house  and  home,  work  to  do,  rest,  recreation,  opportunities  for 
culture  and  his  proper  share  of  everything  there  is  thnt  any 
other  person  has  that  is  conducive  to  the  development  of  a 


136  THE  WAY  OUT. 

higher  manhood ;  but  we  make  it  impossible  for  him  to  get  his 
proper  share  if  we  make  it  possible  for  another  man  to  get 
more  than  his,  at  least  experience  has  proved  it  to  be  so. 

His  proper  share  of  all  there  is,  is  not  only  the  right  of 
every  individual  but  it  is  the  right  and  duty  of  society,  for  its 
own  preservation,  to  demand  it  for  him  and  see  that  he  gets  it, 
and  when  it  does  so,  the  standard  of  individual  moral  excel- 
lence will  have  a  better  show  to  rise. 


PRIVATE  GAIN  IS  PUT  BEFORE  PUBLIC  GOOD. 

' '  The  public  good ' '  has  been  society 's  motto  for  a  long  time, 
and  yet,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  up  to  the  present  it  has  put 
private  gain,  although  obtained  at  the  public  expense  as  I  have 
just  defined  it,  before  and  above  the  public  good. 

It  has  falsely  reasoned  that  private  gain,  though  of  that 
manifestly  unjust  kind,  would  produce  public  good  and  must 
come  first,  and  so  has  constantly  postponed  and  sacrificed  the 
public  good  in  the  interest  of  private  gain,  and  still  is  per- 
sistently doing  so.  It  has  and  still  does  fail  to  realize  that 
private  gain  so  acquired  is  always  at  the  public  expense,  and 
that  the  result  has  been  and  is,  the  unequal  conditions  and  dis- 
content of  today. 

It,  is  now  worrying  itself  to  find  a  way  to  quiet  that  dis- 
content, but  its  Avorry  comes  of  trying  to  find  a  way  that  will 
do  it  without  in  any  manner  disturbing  this  unjust  but  rec- 
ognized right  of  private  gain  at  public  expense. 

It  foolishly  hopes  to  find  it  by  appealing  to  men,  who  are 
devoting  all  their  energies  to  private  gain,  to  be  fair,  instead 
of  saying  to  them  through  its  laws  vigorously  enforced — 
"you  shall  he  fair." 

In  the  absence  of  such  laws,  hired  men  are  helping  to  solve 
the  difficulty  in  their  own  way.  To  better  their  conditions 
they  have  organized  themselves  into  labor  unions,  and,  by 
the  strength  of  their  numbers  and  loyalty  to  purpose  and  each 
other,  they  have  forced  society  to  take  notice  of  their  com- 
plaints and  ask  itself,  "what  is  to  be  done?" 


THE  WAY  OUT.  137 


BECAUSE  SOCIETY  REFUSED  TO  PROTECT  HIRED 
MEN  THEY  FORMED  UNIONS  TO  PROTECT 
THEMSELVES.    "PUBLIC  OPINION"  AS 
TO  WAGES   OF  STREET  CAR- 
MEN.—BY  THE  DAILY  SAN 
FRANCISCO  CHRON- 
ICLE. 

Labor  unions  have  no  right  to  speak  with  authority  and  say 
what  wages  a  man  shall  receive,  nor  do  they  do  so.  That  right 
belongs  only  to  society  and  it  refuses  to  do  anything  except, 
preach.  In  fact  it  even  refuses  to  admit  that  it  has  a  right 
to  do  anything,  and  because  of  its  refusal^  labor  unions  have 
gradually  and  naturally  grown  up  to  accomplish  the  same  end 
by  negative  methods;  that  is,  society  could  by  its  laws  say  to 
the  employer,  "you  shall."  The  unions  cannot  say  to  them, 
"you  shall,"  they  can  only  resolve  that,  "unless  you  do,  we 
won't"  and  then — don't,  called  "strikes." 

Society  can  put  behind  its  laws  to  enforce  them,  the  whole 
power  of  the  State,  but  the  unions  can  put  nothing  behind 
their  I'esolutions  to  enforce  them  but  the  voluntary  loyalty  of 
members,  and  this,  at  times,  calls  for  the  highest  courage  and 
dcv  otiou,  because  they  control  no  land  nor  any  of  the  tools  of 
production  or  distribution  with  which  to  supply  themselves 
with  necessities  during  a  strike  and  know  that  they  and  their 
families  must  face  every  inconvenience,  indignity  and  priva- 
tion their  employer's  wealth  and  poltical  pull  can  subject 
them  to. 

At  present,  a  strike  by  the  Street  Carmen's  Union  of  San 
Francisco,  seems  certain  because  of  the  ultimatum  of  the 
United  Railroads  relative  to  certain  conditions  of  hiring;  and 
the  daily  San  Francisco  Chronicle  of  May  3,  1904,  editorially 
gives  what  it  says  it  "believes  to  be  public  opinion"  as  to  what 
wages  the  men  may  get  if  they  can  as  follows :  ' '  The  present 
wage  scale  being  15  per  cent  higher  than  that  of  the  carmen 
of  any  other  city — except  three  of  four  mountain  mining 
towns — is  fair,  but  that  nobody  cares  how  much  more  the  men 
can  get  by  peaceful  means  and  without  interruption  of  the 
service. ' ' 

The  point  in  that  editorial  as  to  public  opinion  is:  ^Hkat  no- 
body cares  how  niUicli,  more  the  men  can  get,"  and  shows  how 
little  society  realizes  its  relation  to  the  parties  and  its  solemn 
duty  to  recognize  and  exercise  its  right  to  interfere  and  settle 
wage  questions. 

I  say  it  should  care  and  has  got  to  care.  It  has  a  responsi- 
bility in  the  matter  and  cannot  shirk  it  or  escape  it.  That  so- 
ciety is  concerned  whether  it  wants  to  be  or  not.    The  men  on 


138  THE  WAY  OUT. 

both  sides  of  the  controversy  are  members  of  society  and  it  is 
its  business,  for  its  own  protection,  to  see  that  justice  is  done 
whether  to  the  men  or  the  company. 

It  has  a  right  and  it  is  its  business  to  know  that  the  men 
are  fairly  paid  no  matter  what  the  company  is  willing  "by 
peaceful  means" — or  otherwise — to  pay. 

On  the  other  hand  it  has  a  right  and  it  is  its  business  to 
know  that  the  company  is  not  obliged  to  pay  excessive  wages, 
no  matter  what  the  men  demand  or  how  able  they  may  be  by 
refusing  to  work  or  otherwise,  to  enforce  it. 

Such  disputes  do  not  concern  the  parties  to  them  as  much 
as  they  do  society ;  and  by  virtue  of  its  superior  concern,  so- 
ciety has  a  right  and  must  exercise  it,  to  speak  with  authority 
for  both  sides  and  compel  obedience  to  its  will. 

Their  fight  involves  but  one  subject,  namely:  Justice  and  i 
it  is  not  the  right  and  duty  of  society  to  speak  and  settle  ques- 
questious  of  justice  between  its  members,  when  its  own  welfare 
is  concerned,  and  regardless  of  whether  either  party  appeals 
to  it  to  do  so  or  not,  then  it  does  not  possess  rights  and  duties 
sufficient  for  its  own  preservation ;  something  no  one  of  sound 
mind  would  cntend. 

The  doctrine  of  "self  preservation  being  the  first  law  of 
natui'e, "  would  seem  to  justify  the  individual  in  doing  any- 
thing he  finds  it  necessary  to  do  to  preserve  himself ;  but  if  for 
that  reason  he  can  claim  such  a  right,  society,  for  the  same 
reason,  can  claim  it  to  preserve  itself ;  because  its  right  to  pre- 
serv^e  itself  is  a  higher  right  than  the  right  o£  the  individual 
to  preserve  himself,  it  follows  that,  when  the  individual,  in  do- 
ing something  to  preserve  himself  does  something  that  is  des- 
tructive of  society,  society  has  a  right  to  interfere  and  stop 
him. 

The  Chronicle  in  the  same  editorial  further  says:  "That  a 
union  of  the  employes  is  imperatively  required  by  their  own 
interests,  but  that  it  should  be  a  union  so  led  as  to  promote 
good  feeling  between  the  men  and  the  company,  and  not 
hatred  and  continual  bickering.  In  behalf  cf  such  a  union  as 
that,  public  opinion  may  be  implicitly  relied  on  to  aid  in  pro- 
curing from  the  company  whatever  privileges  and  concessions 
appeal  to  the  sense  of  justice  of  the  impartial  man." 

I  purposely  omit  noticing  anything  here  said  except  what 
bears  on  the  point  I  am  discussing;  ^^piihlic  opinion  may  be 
relit^d  on  to  aid  in  procuring  from  the  company  whatever  priv- 
ileges and  concessiovs  appeal  to  the  sense  of  justice/'  etc. 

How  would  public  opinion  do  it,  there  is  no  law  or  court  to 
help  ?    No,  that  is  not  what  is  meant. 

By  "public  opinion"  the  Chronicle  means,  public  sympathy 
for  the  men  if  in  the  right,  and  contempt  for  the  company  if 
in  the  wrong;  but  it  forgets  that  the  public  would  be  divided 
into  those,  first,  who  have  a  similar  complaint  against  their 
employers  but  are  powerless  to  help  themselves  and  would  be 
in  sympathy  with  the  men,  and  a  sprinkling  of  others  who 
would  sympathize  with  them  because  they  love  fairness  under 


THE  WAY   OUT.  139 

all  circumstances,  and,  second,  those  who,  like  the  company, 
^\  ish  to  get  all  the  Vork  they  can  ont  of  their  men  for  the  least 
pay,  and  these  would  sympathize  with  the  company. 

But  what  would  the  company  care  about  public  sympathy? 
Nothing:,  unless  it  materially  diminished  its  revenues  and  it 
could  stand  a  good  deal  of  that,  especially  with  the  "Citizens' 
(rich  men's)  Alliance"  and  other  similar  organizations  back 
of  them.  Hence,  reliance  on  "public  opinion,"  or  sympathy, 
would  be  a  poor  substitute  for  laws  and  courts  to  enforce  jus- 
tice speedily,  impartially  and  exactly. 

But  think  of  the  men  having  to  get  on  their  knees,  either  to 
the  company  or  to  public  opinion  to  get  what  they  earn  ?  That 
is  something  they  should  have  a  right  to  demand  in  a  court  of 
justice. 

No  well  ordered  government  wall  ever  throw  any  man  upon 
public  opinion  or  sympathy  to  get  what  is  his  of  right,  it  will 
see  that  he  gets  it,  and  without  humiliating  him  in  any  such 
manner. 

The  company  as  well  as  the  men  is  entitled  to  what  is  right, 
and  neither  should  be  placed  in  the  attitude  of  a  whining  men- 
dicant to  get  it.  All  should  be  encouraged  to  stand  up  like 
men  and  demand  it  because  entitled  to  it.  If  there  is  no  law 
or  court  either  can  appeal  to  for  such  a  purpose,  it  is  a  shame 
upon  our  civilization  that  such  is  the  case ;  nor  is  there  aiiy 
possible  excuse  for  it  except  it  be  to  make  a  "wide  open"  ana 
better  opportunity  for  the  rich  and  powerful  to  rob  the  poor 
of  just  w^ages,  or  public  ignorance. 

To  tell  the  men  they  must  rely  on  public  sympathy  "to  pro- 
cure from  the  company  privileges  and  concessions,"  is  an  in- 
sult. They  are  not  asking  privileges  or  concessions;  they  are 
demanding  to  be  paid  what  they  earn — the  right  to  live. 


140  THE  WAY  OUT. 


THE   "OPEN  MARKET"   PEN   AND   MEN  WITHOUT 

WORK. 

It  is  the  men  witho^^t  work,  hungry  working  men,  not  mer- 
cenary working  men,  whom  capitalists  depend  upon  to  break 
strikes  and  disrupt  labor  unions,  and  the  "open  market"  is  the 
pen  they  have  provided  in  which  to  collect  and  herd  them 
until  wanted. 

The  wagCvS  they  will  pay  are  never  fixed  with  reference  to 
what  would  be  reasonable  but  always  with  reference  to  the 
number  of  idle  men  they  have  in  their  "open  market"  pen, 
whose  sufferings  from  privation  have  reached  the  unendurable 
stage  that  makes  them  glad  to  get  out  and  go  to  work  on  any 
terms  or  conditions  offered. 

The  great  stockyards  strike  now  (July,  1904)  on  in  Chicago, 
where  half  a  dozen  packers  feel  able  to  defy  sixty  thousand 
union  employes;  and  the  cotton  mills  strike  now  on  in  Fall 
River,  Mass.,  where  a  few  mill  owners  feel  able  to  defy  twenty- 
six  thousand  more,  are  instances  of  the  value  to  them  of  their 
"open  market",  pen  principle  and  of  the  unlimited  power  it 
places  in  their  hands  to  rob  and  oppress  hired  men  in  the 
absence  of  any  law  to  force  them  to  pay  reasonable  wages. 

They  know  the  value  of  the  "open  market"  pen.  and  how 
to  keep  it  full  and  overflowing  with  hungry  men  wanting 
work,  and  they  do  it. 

Notice  how  flippantly  they  treat  the  seriousness  of  the  s'tua- 
tion  in  Chicago.  Mr.  A.  Meeker,  manager  for  Armour  &  Co.'s 
plant  says :  ' '  This  is  a  big  country  and  there  is  plenty  of  idle 
labor  this  year.  We  are  getting  along  fine  without  the 
unions. ' ' 

Of  course !  Why  not  ?  They  have  got  their  ' '  open  market ' ' 
pen,  chuck  full  of  destitute  "idle  labor,"  and  they  know  it. 
So  do  the  cotton  mill  owners. 

For  a  long  time  both  have  been  busy  helping  to  get  it  full 
and  crowded,  ready,  in  case  their  union  employes  refused  to 
longer  knuckle  to  unjust  wage  conditions  and  strike,  to  dis- 
place them  from  their  "open  market"  pen  with  negroes, 
Chinamen,  Japs,  or  anybody  else. 

No  wonder  a  few,  who  are  rich,  can  complacently  snap 
their  fingers  at  eighty-six  thousand  who  are  poor,  when  they 
know  their  "open  market"  pen  contains  an  enormous  army 
many  times  their  number,  of  hungry  reserves  desperate 
enough  to  do  anything. 

The  open  market  pen  is  a  part  of  their  settled  policy,  we 
might  say,  a  part  of  their  assets,  and  will  continue  to  be  as  long 
as  they  are  permitted  to  go  into  it  and  hire  men  without 
being  obliged  by  law  to  pay  them  reasonable  wages. 

Capitalists  have  such  an  absolute  control  of  all  industries 
that  they  can  always  keep  plenty  of  men  idle,  hungry  and 


THE  WAY  OUT.  141 

desperate  enough  to  help  them  keep  down  wages  and  disrupt 
unions. 

There  can  be  no  question  about  there  being  plenty  of  idle 
men,  as  Mr.  Meeker,  Armour  &  Co.'s  manager  says,  or  about 
there  being  plenty  of  men  who  are  at  work  for  insufficient 
wages,  or  about  there  being  plenty  of  others  who  would  be 
glad  to  take  their  places  at  even  less  wages  simply  because 
they  are  destitute  and  any  kind  of  wages  would  help  them  to 
exist  a  little  longer  while  waiting,  hoping  for  "something  to 
turn  up." 

Poor  deluded  creatures,  they  little  dream  of  the  plans  of 
capitalists  and  the  great  economic  reforms  they  are  constantly 
shaping  tO'  keep  them  where  they  are  or  narrow  still  more  the 
possibility  of  bettering  themselves  and  that  shall  make  capit- 
alists richer. 

"Something  to  turn  up,"  indeed!  That  day  has  gone  by 
for  hired  men  so  long  as  the  present  system  continues. 

Nothing  "turns  up"  any  more  except  for  capitalists  who 
are  wrongly  permitted  to  own  and  control  the  Earth  and  Tools 
of  Production,  for  the  Common  People,  nothing.  All  that  is 
left  for  them  is  work,  work  at  odd  times  when  Capitalists 
choose  to  give  it  to  them  and  for  such  wages  as  they  choose  to 
pay. 

It  is  the  natural  thing  to  expect,  as  long  as  men  are  allowed 
to  work  for  any  price  they  please  and  work  is  scarce,  with  sev- 
<^ral  after  the  same  job,  that  each  will  underbid  the  other  to 
get  it.  This  is  exactly  the  condition  the  "open  market"  system 
produces  and  fosters  and  the  condition  capitalists  want.  They 
want  to  keep  up  competition  among  hired  men  but  combine 
and  stop  competition  among  themselves. 

So  long  as  they  can  induce  the  people  to  believe  that  the 
open  market  is  right,  and  can  keep  hired  men  competing,  the 
people  will  do  nothing  to  close  it,  and  it  is  the  natural  thing 
to  expect  that  they  will  hire  the  men  who  will  work  the 
cheapest. 

It  is  also  the  natural  thing  to  expect  that  if  a  man  is  starv- 
ing, he  will  work  for  .just  enough  to  keep  his  body  and  soul 
together  if  he  can't  get  any  more. 

Now,  does  anyone  have  any  doubt  about  the  truth  of  this 
proposition :  that  if  a  man  is  obliged  to  work  for  a  bare  exist- 
ence he  is  bound  to  lose  interest  in  himself,  his  family  and 
country  ? 

Does  anyone  doubt  that  he  will  eventually  degenerate 
physically,  mentally  and  morally,  that  the  young  family  that 
must  look  to  him  will  be  deprived  of  those  things  necessary 
to  make  them  healthy,  strong  and  desirable  citizens? 

Does  anyone  doubt  the  right  and  duty  of  society  to  inter- 
fere and  protect  every  man  in  his  right  to  receive  wages  that 
will  enable  him  to  live  decently  and  raise  his  family  properly? 

Does  not  the  preservation  of  society  depend  upon  it? 

President  Michael  J.  Donnelly,  leader  of  the  stock  yards 
strike  in  Chicago,  had  the  right  idea  of  the  importance  of  the 


142  THE  WAY  OUT. 

relation  of  the  hired  man  to  society  when  (July,  1904,)  he  said 
in  the  card  he  issued  to  the  men:  "Every  American  citizen 
must  have  a  living  icage.  He  must  have  a  good  home.  He 
must  have  the  very  test  for  his  children." 


THE  WAY  OUT.  143 


"THE  CLOSED  SHOP." 

A  press  dispatch  reads : 

"Pittsburg,  Pa.,  May  17,  1904.  Nearly  700  delegates  were 
in  their  seats  when  the  ninth  annual  convention  of  the  Na- 
tional Association  of  IManufacturers  was  called  to  order  today. 
President,  D.  M.  Parry,  of  Indianapolis,  delivered  his  annual 
address  and  briefly  discussed  the  labor  problem,  which  ho  de- 
clared was  at  present  the  paramount  question  before  the  As- 
sociation." 

"Speaking  of  the  closed  shop,"  Parry  said. 

"The  closed  shop  is  against  public  policy  and  is  of  doubt- 
ful legality. ' ' 

Now,  before  it  can  be  said  that  the  "closed  shop  is  against 
public  policy,"  it  must  appear  that  there  is  a  public  policy 
in  reference  to  hired  men  and  shops. 

If  there  is,  what  is  it?     Is  it  a  good  policy  or  a  bad  one? 

If  it  is  a  bad  one,  would  it  not  be  wiser  to  censure  the  policy 
than  the  conduct  of  those  who  oppose  it  ?  The  conduct  of  those 
who  oppose  the  policy  may  be  better  than  the  policy ;  anyway 
the  greater  the  opposition  the  more  we  should  be  aroused  to 
investigate  the  policy  to  discover  if  there  is  anything  wrong 
with  it.  If  the  opposition  has  a  large  following  and  they  ap- 
pear to  be  sincere,  it  would  seem  to  be  wiser  to  weigh  carefully 
the  reasons  which  prompt  it;  than  to  toss  them  aside  as  not 
worth  considering. 

In  the  case  of  the  "open  shop,"  as  it  is  called,  it  is  a  fact 
that  about  three  million  labor  union  men  are  opposed  to  it, 
and  this  would  indicate,  if  public  policy  is  in  favor  of  the  open 
shop,  that  it  is  not  a  perfect  policy. 

As  to  what  is  public  policy  on  the  question  of  open  or  closed 
shops,  Mr.  Herbert  George,  chairman  of  the  executive  com- 
mittee of  the  Citizens'  Alliance,  should,  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  capitalists,  be  good  authority.  He  tells  us  in  "Town 
Talk, ' '  May,  1904,  that :  ' '  The  closed  shops  is  the  worst  form 
of  tyranny  known  to  the  commercial  world,"  "that  the  open 
shop  is  the  natural  right  of  Americans  and  mankind,  and  it 
will  prevail,  though  it  precipitates  the  bloodiest  war  that  ever 
blotted  the  pages  of  history. ' ' 

What  Ml*.  George  means  is,  men  have  always  been  permitted 
to  sell  their  labor  in  competition  with  each  other  in  the  open 
market  for  any  price  they  pleased  and  it  was  their  natural 
right  to  do  so;  that  it  is  their  natural  right  now  and  always 
shall  be.  In  other  words  he  means,  it  has  been  and  is  public 
policy,  and  the  policy  is  going  to  be  continued,  right  or  wrong, 
if  it  takes  a  civil  war  to  do  it. 

If  Mr.  George  and  the  Alliance  are  so  sure  they  are  in  the 
right  that  they  won't  give  up  without  a  war,  then  of  course,  it 
is  useless  to  waste  Avords  with  them.  But  as  I  know  they  don't 
expect  to  fight  their  own  battles,  but  will  depend  upon  labor- 


144  THE  WAY  OUT. 

ing  men  to  fight  them,  I  must  try  to  spoil  the  fight  by  talk- 
ing to  the  laboring  men  so  they  can't  raise  an  army. 

The  whole  object  of  this  book  is  to  show  that  if,  "Americans 
and  mankind"  have  the  "natural  right"  Mr,  George  says 
they  have,  it  is  not  and  never  was  their  social  right;  and  as  all 
men  are  members  of  society  they  have  no  other  rights,  but 
social  rights. 

Social  rights  are  the  only  rights  public  policy  has  anything 
to  do  with,  and  to  the  extent  that  public  policy  has  sanctioned 
the  social  right  of  men  to  compete  with  each  other  to  get  work 
and  sell  their  labor  in  the  open  market  to  get  it,  for  any  price 
they  pleased ;  it  has  been  a  bad,  corrupt  and  rotten  policy,  and 
I  hope  laboring  men  will  organize  themselves  into  a  great 
army,  not  with  guns,  but  with  ballots  in  their  hands,  and  vote 
it  out. 

No  union  man  would  object  to  the  Open  Shop  if  it  stocd  for 
reasonable  wages,  hours  and  conditions,  but  it  don't,  and  ever^- 
union  man  knows  it. 

Its  object  is  to  encourage  competition ;  not  for  the  good  of 
the  man,  but  to  get  his  labor  for  less  than  reasonable  wages: 
and,  as  there  is  no  Jaw  to  prevent  it,  the  unions  stand  in  the 
way  to  do  all  they  can  towards  preventing  it.  They  do  not 
fight  non-union  laboring  men  because  they  don't  belong  to  a 
union,  but  because  non-union  men  are  willing  to  go  on  com- 
peting in  wages  and  helping  employers  to  keep  wages  down 
below  what  any  man  ought  to  sell  his  labor  for.  The  imions 
contend  for  the  principle  that  all  men  must  be  paid  wages  that 
will  enable  them  to  live  decently,  no  matter  if  there  are  forty 
men  who  want  the  same  job. 

That,  Mr.  Herbert  George,  is  what  public  policy  should  be 
and  must  be,  nor  will  it  "precipitate  the  bloodiest  war"  or 
any  war  to  get  it;  the  ballots  of  the  men  you  and  your  Alli- 
ance are  opposing  will  bring  it,  in  due  time.  And  further,  if 
you  and  the  members  of  your  Alliance  were  obliged  for  the 
welfare  of  society  to  pay  every  man  in  your  employ  reason- 
able wages  instead  of  what  you  can  get  men  for  by  your  open 
market  scheme,  you  would  never  have  anji:hing  more  to  say 
about  ' '  Open  Shop. ' ' 

It  is  hardly  worth  while,  perhaps,  to  remind  Mr.  George 
that  he  seems  to  be  a  citizen  of  the  Peabody  and  Bell  pattern ; 
he  sees  things  only  as  capitalists  want  them.  He  knows  the 
conditions  the  Alliance  wishes  to  perpetuate  to  keep  labor 
down  and  always  cheap,  and  tells  of  the  extremes  it  would  go 
to  to  have  its  way. 

When  he  threatens  "the  bloodiest  war,"  however,  he  does 
not  mean  that  he  or  any  of  the  Alliance  would  actually  carry 
a  gun;  he  means  they  would  depend  on  the  conditions  they 
are  so  willing  to  welcome  a  war  to  maintain,  to  keep  enough 
competing  laboring  men  waiting  for  jobs  and  hungry,  to  be 
ready,  when  wanted,  to  shoulder  guns  and  do  their  fighting. 
That  is,  when  the  time  comes,  laboring  men  will  be  set  to  shed- 
ding the  blood  of  laboring  men,  to  help  capitalists  maintain 
the  principle  of  the  "Open  Shop,"  not  for  the  benefit  of 
Laboring  Men,  but  for  the  benefit  of  the  Alliance. 


THE  WAY  OUT.  145 

THE  OPEN  SHOP. 
WHAT  DOES  IT  MEAN? 

The  open  shop  the  Alliance  wants,  means,  that  the  rich 
shall  have  the  right  to  skin  the  poor.  It  means,  they  may  al- 
ways keep  the  poor  fighting  each  other  to  get  a  job  and 
cutting  wages  to  the  lowest  living  limit.  It  means,  the  hired 
man  shall  continue  to  live  on  crusts  and  crumbs  although  his 
labor  creates  substantials,  delicacies  and  luxuries  in  great 
abundance  for  his  employer.  It  means,  greater  poverty  for 
the  poor,  deeper  degradation  and  denser  ignorance.  It  means 
a  race  of  industrial  slaves,  the  dwarfing  of  ambition,  the  death 
of  hope,  the  servility  of  a  vanishing  manhood  and  the  ultimate 
destruction  of  society. 

"Union  labor  is  the  original  protest"  against  these  condi- 
tions— "against  being  skinned."  , 

"Non-union  labor  is  submission  to  the  extortion."  (Ap- 
peal to  Reason.) 

When  it  is  said  that  "union  labor  is  the  original  protest 
against  being  skinned,"  it  is  not  meant  that  the  unionizing 
of  labor  on  present  lines  will  solve  the  difficulty  and  stop  the 
skinning,  for  it  is  doubtful  if  it  can  ever  do  it ;  but  it  is  meant 
that  it  has  done  something. 

First,  it  has  aroused  and  awakened  Labor  to  a  realization  of 
the  fact  that  it  is  being  skinned. 

Second,  it  has  taught  it  that  it  must  organize,  in  order  to  do 
anything  to  stop  it. 

Labor  unions,  by  controlling  in  part  the  supply  of  labor 
and  demanding  a  larger  per  cent  of  what  labor  produces,  has 
vastly  improved  labor  conditions  and  will  go  on  improving 
them  as  long  as  employers  are  not  united ;  that  is,  are  doing 
business  independently  of  and  in  competition  with  each  other. 

But,  will  the  time  come  when  they  can't  demand  and  get 
reasonable  wages? 

My  object  is>  to  point  out  the  inevitable  as  I  see  it,  no  mat- 
ter how  unpleasant  it  may  be  to  me  to  do  so  or  to  laboring  men 
to  hear  it. 

Fore-warned  is  fore-armed,  they  sa.y,  and  if  men  see  what 
is  coming,  they  will  get  ready  for  it. 

Let  me  ask  you  to  look  backward  fifty  years — fifty  is  far 
enough.  What  could  you  see  then  ?  Were  there- any  but  small 
individual  producers  and  traders  ? 

What  became  of  them  and  what  took  their  places?  Was  it 
not  small  partnerships  and  companies  ? 

What  was  the  object  of  forming  partnerships  and  com- 
panies, was  it  not  the  concentration  of  capital  and  co-opera- 
tion of  effort  in  order  to  be  able  to  put  up  a  better  fight  to  con- 
trol business?     Did  not  partnerships  and  companies   force 


146  THE   WAY  OUT. 

other  individuals  to  form  partnerships  and  companies  or  quit 
business  because  too  weak  to  hold  their  own  'I 

"What  came  next  ?  AYas  it  not  corporations,  and  was  not 
their  object  a  still  greater  concentration  of  capital  and  co- 
operation of  effort  for  the  purpose  of  putting  up  a  still  strong- 
er fight  for  business  than  the  partnerships  and  companies  were 
able  to  put  up  ? 

Did  they  not  force  other  partnerships,  companies  and  in- 
dividuals to  also  form  corporations  or  quit  business? 

AYhat  came  next?  Was  it  not  combines  of  corporations, 
called  tnists,  and  was  not  their  object  a  further  concentra- 
tion of  capital  and  effort  to  control  all  business  in  their  line, 
stop  all  competition  and  have  a  monopoly? 

Well,  there  you  have  it,  step  by  step,  from  fifty  years  ago 
to  the  present. 

First  the  individual,  then  the  individual  crowded  out  by 
the  company,  then  the  company  crowded  out  by  the  corpora- 
tion and  now  the  corporation  being  crowded  out  by  the  trust ; 
a  steady  growth  of  the  principle  of  concentration  and  co-op- 
eration. 

And  the  result  1  Why  the  result  is  that  instead  of  millions 
in  business  for  themselves  making  a  nice  living,  competing 
and  keeping  prices  normal  and  in  harmony  with  the  law  of 
natural  supply  and  demand  as  of  old,  those  millions  are  now 
working  for  wages  for  the  trusts  that  ruined  their  business, 
and  absolutely  without  any  hope  of  escape  until  the  pro- 
gramme changes. 

You  have  looked  backward  fifty  years,  now  look  forward. 

Can  you  judge  from  the  past  what  is  sure  to  come? 

Do  you  think  concentration  or  co-operation  will  ever  be 
abandoned  or  that  we  will  go  back  to  the  old  way  of  doing 
things?  Do  you  expect  to  see  the  old-time  blacksmith  ham- 
mering out  horseshoes,  the  old-time  shoemaker  manufacturing 
shoes,  the  farmer  with  flail  threshing  his  grain  or  the  old  stage 
coach  crossing  the  continent  instead  cf  cars? 

No,  you  don't  expect  to  see  those  things  again,  nor  do  you 
expect  to  see  the  multitude  of  little  producers  of  old,  taking 
the  places  of  the  great  concerns  that  closed  their  places  of 
business  forever. 

Concentration  and  co-operation  have  been  the  order  of  pro- 
gress and  their  work  is  not  finished. 

You  know  it,  and  expect  to  see  them  go  on  and  on  until  the 
smallest  waste  in  the  conduct  of  business  is  eliminated,  and 
every  man  has  either  joined  a  combine  or  been  crushed. 

Now,  if  you  look  at  it  as  a  fact,  which  it  certainly  is,  that 
concentration  and  co-operation  is  as  much  a  law  of  business, 
economy  and  success  as  gravity  is  a  law  of  nature,  and  like 
it  may  be  utilized  but  never  destroyed,  then  you  will  be  look- 
ing into  the  future  from  the  point  most  favorable  to  you  to 
discover  your  best  course  of  action  to  turn  it  to  your  advan- 
tage, instead  of  wasting  time,  hesitating  to  act,  or  in  efforts 
intended  to  stay  its  inevitable  progress. 


THE   WAY   OUT.  147 

There  is  a  way  to  do  this  and  it  is  up  to  Hired  Men  and 
Labor  Unions  to  find  it,  boss  the  job  and  flourish  with  it.  with 
the  rest  of  mankind,  or  get  in  the  way  and  miserably  perish 
while  uselessly  opposing  it. 

Tell  us  if  you  can,  Hired  Men  and  Labor  Unions,  have  you 
found  it  ?  Do  you  now  occupy  a  place  of  security  and  safety 
in  the  great  concentrating  and  co-operating  process  that  is  go- 
ing on  and  rapidly  gobbling  the  Earth? 

Let  me  ask  you  another  question.  Do  you  expect  to  dictate 
terms  to  those  who  own  the  earth  ? 

Of  course,  you  understand  what  is  going  on.  You  under- 
stand that  a  few  years  ago  everything  that  was  manufactured 
was  manufactured  by  a  great  many  different  people  wlio 
owned  their  own  plants  and  operated  independently  of  each 
other,  each  competing  with  the  other  for  his  share  of  the  trade 
and  employing  his  own  agents,  bosses  and  men.  Is  it  that  way 
now  ?    No. 

"What  has  happened?  Why,  a  J.  Pierpont  Morgan  went 
among  them  and  explained  how  foolish  it  was  to  have  so  many 
different  sets  of  men  and  tools  to  do  what  one  set  could  do 
under  one  management,  and  save  all  the  expense  of  so  many 
and  still  sell  their  goods  for  the  same  profit. 

Did  they  see  it?  Of  course  they  did,  and  sold  out  to  a  com- 
bine under  a  new  name  that  closed  all  the  old  plants  not  need- 
ed and  "fired"  all  the  old  employes  not  needed  in  the  new 
arrangement. 

And  what  did  they  do  ? 

They  formed  such  a  powerful  combination  of  capital  and 
influence,  that  nobody  dared  start  up  in  opposition  to  them, 
and  were  able  to  control  primaries,  elections,  appointments 
and  the  making  of  laws,  and  pollute  the  beach,  bar,  jury  box 
and  pulpit. 

Combines  have  not  yet  quite  got  absolute  control  of  every- 
thing, but  they  are  getting  it,  and  when  that  time  comes,  the 
unions  will  be  as  powerless  to  demand  reasonable  w'ages  and 
conditions  of  labor  as  a  solitary  individual. 

Why?  Because,  if  labor  strikes,  the  associated  combines 
will  back  each  other  and  all  shut  down  until  labor  is  starved 
into  submission. 

They  can't  do  it?  Why  not,  don't  they  own  everything? 
What  has  Labor  to  sustain  itself  but  the  little  remnant  of 
wages  saved  ? 

As  things  are  now,  one  army  of  hired  men  is  permitted  to 
work  while  another  is  on  strike,  and  the  working  army  feeds 
the  striking  army,  but  do  you  think  it  will  continue  that  way  ? 

No,  not  any  longer  than  is  necessary  to  get  an  organization 
of  the  combines  perfected  so  they  can  act  in  harmony  and  sup- 
port each  other  as  did  the  shoe  manufacturers  in  San  Fran- 
cisco and  Petaluma  recently  when  the  men  in  one  shop  went 
on  a  strike  and  all  the  other  factories  on  the  Bay  stood  by  the 
factory  in  which  the  strike  occurred  and  demanded  that  the 


148  THE  A\'AY  OUT. 

strikers  go  back  to  work  or  all  the  other  factories  would  close 
and  throw  every  union  man  in  them  out  of  employment. 

That  was  only  a  small  example  of  what  can  be  done  and  will 
be  done. 

THE  OBJECT  IN  UNIONIZING  LABOR. 

The  object  in  unionizing  labor  is  to  place  it  where  it  can- 
not be  forced  to  work  on  the  arbitrary  terms  of  employers. 

Its  object  is  to  accomplish  the  very  end  which  I  say  should 
be  accomplished  by  law,  courts  and  juries. 

As  the  courts  will  not  interfere  to  compel  the  payment  of 
reasonable  wages,  the  unions  have  sought  to  shield  men  from 
the  avarice  of  employers  by  fixing  a  schedule  of  prices  and 
inducing  them  to  refuse  to  work  for  less. 

This  has  been  quite  effectual  during  the  early  stages  of  con- 
centration and  organization  of  capital,  but  is  it  not  plain  that 
a  more  perfect  concentration  and  organization  will  defeat  the 
purposes  of  unions,  if  their  only  weapon  is  the  Strike  ? 

Some  one  has  said  "the  lockout  is  as  fierce  and  effective  as 
the  strike.  Strengthened  by  a  federation  strike  insurance 
company,  the  employers  are  bidding  defiance  to  Unionism." 

That  is  stating  the  situation  exactly  as  it  will  be.  The  em- 
ployers, growing  fewer  and  fewer,  as  business  concentrates 
in  fewer  hands,  will  "federate"  and  act  as  one  in  all  matters 
that  affect  any  member  of  the  federation,  and  as  Labor  owns 
nothing  and  cannot  support  itself  without  its  income  of  wages, 
it  must  finally  yield  to  the  federation's  terms  unless  Society, 
through  its  courts  shall  interfere  and  say  to  the  federation, 
"You  are  great,  but  Society  is  greater,  and  'by  the  Eternal' 
you  shall  do  justice  or  we  will  take  over  all  you  claim  and  op- 
erate it  in  the  interest  of  the  whole  people."  And,  perhaps, 
that  would  be  the  best  weapon,  after  all,  that  hired  men  could 
choose  to  win  their  fight  for  fair  wages.  It  would  make  them 
equal  partner^  in  the  business. 


THE   WAY  OUT.  149 


THE  REMEDY. 

Various  remedies  have  been  proposed  for  "the  vexed  prob- 
lems before  the  country" — as  Mr.  Cortelyou,  Secretary  of  the 
Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  calls  the  labor  troubles 
— from  "sane  and  conversative  treatment,"  "sterling  princi- 
ples of  honor  and  fair  dealing"  to  "arbitration"  and  "five 
acre  farms  with  cow  and  pig"  for  laboring  men  in  barren 
New  England. 

The  difficulty  with  all  the  remedies  so  far  proposed,  of  which 
I  have  heard,  is,  none  of  them  would  be  a  remedy. 

"Fair  dealing"  would  go  to  the  root,  but  nobody  will  ever 
deal  fairly  unless  the  law  of  self-interest  or  the  courts  compel 
him  to  do  so.  Self-interest  seems,  so  far,  to  be  wholly  against 
fair  dealing;  hence  the  only  remedy  worth  trying  while  the 
competative  system  lasts,  would  be,  courts  and  .juries  fully  em- 
po^vered  and  the  duty  made  mandatory,  to  decide  what  are 
fair  wages  in  every  case  submitted  to  them. 
■  The  five  acre  plan  is  silly,  except  as  an  expedient,  and  arbi- 
tration, unless  compulsory,  would  amount  to  nothing. 

Labor  unions  are  not  a  remedy,  and  never  can  be  for  the 
reasons  I  have  already  given  and  probably  for  other  good  rea- 
sons. 

To  begin  with,  it  is  useless  to  propose  any  remedy  unless  it 
is  founded  on  fundamental  principles  that  undelie  the  welfare 
of  society,  and  society  sees  it  and  is  ready  to  enforce  it. 
Therefore,  I  have  endeavored  to  point  out  the  fundamental 
principles  involved,  how  they  have  been  disregarded  and  the 
troubles  that  resulted. 

If  I  have  succeeded,  and  the  troubles  spring  from  the  cause 
I  have  discussed,  then  the  remedy  I  propose  would  naturally 
follow,  be  in  harmony  with  present  institutions  and  as  abso- 
lutely effective  as  could  be  hoped  for,  so  long  as  competition 
is  recognized  as  the  best  industrial  system  for  the  people  to 
live  under. 

Briefly,  those  principles  are  that: 

No  man  has  a  right  to  sell  his  labor  for  any  price  he  pleases, 
and  because  lie  lias  no  sucli  right. 

No  other  man  has  a  right  to  buy  his  labor  for  any  price  he 
can,  and  if  he  does  so, 

The  right  of  society  is  to  interfere  and  inquire  if  the  wages 
paid  are  reasonable,  and  if  not,  to  make  him  pay  reasonable 
wages. 

Society  already  possesses  all  the  Machinery  necessary  to  do 
this. 

All  that  is  lacking,  if  anything,  is  the  making  of  one 
simple  law  to  set  it  in  motion,  and  the  "vexing  problem"  be- 
tween capital  and  labor  will  fade  away. 

The  law  would  say  in  substance:  "All  men  shall  be  paid 


150  THE  AVAY   OUT. 

reasonable  wages  for  their  labor,  to  be  determnied  by  a  court 
and  jury  when  appealed  to,  ref/ardless  of  any  agreement  as  to 
wages  that  may  have  been  macle.^^ 

In  other  words,  courts  and  juries  should  be  authorized  and 
required  to  go  hehind  every  contract  as  to  wages  and  inquire 
on  one  side  into  the  ability  or  efficiency  of  the  hired  man  and 
the  necessary  cost  to  him  to  live  decently,  and  on  the  other, 
into  the  ability  of  the  employer  to  pay,  and  do  justice  between 
them. 

That  is  all  there  is  to  it ;  and,  if  the  reader  will  keep  in  view 
the  constitutional  right  of  every  man  to  "enjoy  and  defend 
life  and  liberty  and  pursue  and  obtain  safety  and  happiness  " 
and  that  his  constitutional  right  to  "acquire,  possess  and  pro- 
tect property"  was  intended  to  be  subordinate  to  and  for  the 
purpose  of  securing  these ;  if  he  will  keep  in  view  the  right  of 
society  to  preserve  itself,  and  what  kind  of  contracts  should 
be  treated  as  legal  contracts  (see  ante,  page  94,  et  sec,  "The 
discontent  of  hired  men"),  I  have  hopes  his  conscience  will  tell 
him  there  is  no  hardship  in  this  remedy  of  which  any  just  man 
could  complain. 

The  principle  that  justifies  the  remedy  is,  the  welfare  of 
society. 

It  found  a  partial  precedent  in  the  taking  of  testimony  lie- 
fore  the  board  of  arbitration  to  which  had  been  submitted  the 
dispute  relative  to  wages  between  the  Street  Car  Men's  Union 
and  the  United  Railroads  of  San  Francisco  in  1903. 

In  that  case  the  cost  of  living,  including  house  rent,  pri'^e  of 
bread,  meat,  groceries,  clothing  and  many  other  things,  were 
testified  to  on  behalf  of  the  men,  also  how  steadily  they  receiv- 
ed work,  the  revenues  of  the  company,  the  amount  of  capital 
invested  on  which  it  should  receive  a  proper  return,  and  the 
cost  of  operating,  etc.,  the  point  being  to  prove  the  men  were 
not  paid  enough  to  enable  them  to  live  decently  and  the  com- 
pany, from  its  revenues  from  the  roads  operated  by  the  labor 
of  the  men,  was  abundantly  able  to  pay  them  better  wages. 

On  behalf  of  the  company,  it  was  relied  on  chiefly  to  show 
it  already  paid  better  wages  than  were  paid  in  any  other  city 
in  America  for  the  same  class  of  work,  except  in  Montana. 

Can  anyone  see  the  difference  between  these  two  proposi- 
tions 1-  One,  the  men,  demanding  wages  enough  to  enable  them 
to  live  decentl}^  in  San  Francisco;  the  other,  the  company, 
contending  if  it  paid  better  wages  than  any  other  city  in  Am- 
erica it  was  paying  enough. 

The  men  represented  a  principle  in  their  demands,  one  un- 
derlying the  welfare  of  society,  namely:  that  they  produced 
enough  for  the  company  so  that  the  company  could  afford  to 
pay  them  wages  that  would  enable  them  to  live  decently,  which, 
of  course,  the  welfare  of  society  demanded  that  they  shouM. 
The  company  represented  no  principle  except  one  antagonistic 
to  the  welfare  of  society,  namely:  its  own  private  gain  at  the 
public  expense.  The  company's  position  was,  in  short,  that  if 
they  could  get  other  men  to  do  the  work  for  the  wages  they 


THE   WAY  OUT.  151 

were  then  paying,  they  had  a  right  to  get  them  and  keep  every 
dollar  of  profit  for  the  stockholders.  That  if  the  present  em- 
ployes wished  to  remain  they  should  be  willing  to  work  for 
the  wages  others  would  be  willing  to  w^ork  for.  In  other  words, 
so  long  as  there  were  two  men  wanting  the  same  job,  the  com- 
pany claimed  it  should  have  the  right  to  hire  the  one  that 
r-ould  manage  on  the  least  pay  to^  keep  breath  and  stength 
enough  in  his  body  to  do  the  work,  so  the  company  could  make 
bigger  profits. 

The  contention  of  the  company  was  only  an  instance  of  the 
prevailing  idea  among  capitalists,  courts  and  statesmen  as  to 
what  wages  should  be,  and  may  be  stated  thus:  Wages  should 
never  he  regulated  hy  what  is  reasonable  hut  always  hy  the 
pressure  of  competition. 

Recently,  (June  9,  1904)  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commis- 
sion, in  the  case  of  the  Georgia  Peach  Growers'  Association, 
against  the  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Railroad  and  others,  rendered 
a  decision  in  which  it  said:  "An  arbitrary  charge  of  $80  per 
car  imposed  by  the  defendant,  the  New  York,  New  Haven  and 
Hartford  Railroad  Company,  for  the  transportation  from 
New  York  to  Boston  on  peaches  and  other  fruit  shipped  from 
Georgia  points  to  Boston,  its  haul  .being  part  of  the  through 
service  between  the  points  of  shipment  and  destination,  is  un- 
just, and  $50  per  car  would  be  a  just  and  reasonable  charge 
for  such  transportation." 

Of  course  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  is  a  court 
authorized  by  a  law  of  Congress  to  inquire,  complaint  being 
made,  into  and  to  fix  a  reasonable  charge  for  transportation  in 
certain  cases ;  but  ivhy,  if  it  is  proper  for  Congress  to  create 
a  court  with  power  to  interfere  for  the  protection  of  shippers, 
would  it  not  be  proper  for  a  State  to  empower  its  courts,  if 
they  lack  it,  to  inquire  into  and  fix  the  reasonable  wages  a 
hired  man  shall  be  paid  in  the  particular  case? 

His  wages,  when  less  than  reasonable,  are  as  arbitrarily  fixed 
by  his  employer  as  are  charges  by  a  common  carrier  for  trans- 
portation to  a  shipper,  and  certainly  he  is  as  much  entitled  to 
potection  against  being  robbed  as  the  shipper. 

The  law  under  which  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission 
seeks  to  do  justice  between  the  carrier  and  the  shipper,  is 
founded  upon  the  same  general  principle  which  I  suggest  jus- 
tifies a  law  that  would  turn  over  to  the  courts  the  job  of  seeing 
justice  done  between  hired  men  and  their  employers.  The  dif- 
ference in  effect  would  be  that,  before  the  ordinary  courts,  jus- 
tice would  be  swifter  and  more  certain^  than  before  that  com- 
mission, because  a  local  jury  would  have  hold  of  it,  and  em- 
ployers would  soon  learn  to  keep  from  being  hauled  into  court 
by  paying,  at  the  start,  wages  they  felt  sure  no  court  or  jury 
would  say  were  unfair.  If  they  did  not,  and  relied  on  an 
unfair  contract,  the  jury  would  say  so  and  the  court  would  set 
it  aside  as  contrary  to  good  morals,  against  public  policy  and 
void. 

The  hired  man  being  an  integral  part  of  society  and  the 


152  THE  WAY  OUT. 

court's  duty  being  to  safeguard  society,  it  could  not  shrink 
from  interfering  with  a  firm  hand  when  necessary  to  protect 
him  against  unscrupulous  or  unjust  wage  contracts. 

If  hired  men  had  a  right  to  appeal  to  a  court  and  jury  and 
compel  their  employers  to  give  them  reasonable  wages,  hours 
and  conditions  of  labor,  instead  of  being  obliged  to  work  un- 
der dangerous  and  health-destroying  conditions  and  long 
hours,  and  for  the  lowest  wages  which  men  competing  with 
each  other  are  obliged  from  necessity  to  take,  they  would  feel 
that  at  last  they  had  a  way  they  could  depend  upon  to  settle 
in  a  fair  manner  all  disputes  and  need  not  resort  to  a  strike. 
At  all  events,  it  would  be  a  lawful,  peaceful  and  dignified 
way,  and  in  the  meantime,  while  a  case  was  pending,  work 
could  go  on  as  usual.  There  would  be  no  excuse  for  calling 
out  the  militia  or  for  high  prices  because  of  scarcity;  the  pub- 
lic would  not  be  annoyed  or  inconvenienced  by  a  lockout  or 
strike;  traffic  would  not  be  interrupted  nor  supplies  cut  off 
nor  would  there  be  any  other  great  disturbance  such  as  we  see 
now.  The  questions  at  issue  would  be  quietly  tried  in  the 
usual  way  and  both  sides  would  submit  to  the  decision,  if  for 
no  other  reason,  because  they  would  have  to,  the  whole  power 
of  the  State  and  Nation  would  be  behind  it. 


THE  WAY  OUT.        .      153 

.LOCAL  CO-OPERATIVE  PLANTS  AND  STORES 
NOT  A  CURE  FOR  LABOR  TROUBLES. 

Co-operative  industries  owned  and  controlled  by  the  labor- 
ing men  operating  them  or  in  which  they  have  taken  stock  and 
share  the  profits,  including  stores,  have  been  tried  in  various 
countries  and  proven  of  great  benefit  to  the  members.  There 
is  no  doubt  but  the  co-operative  principle  could  be  extended 
to  include  every  industry  with  advantage  to  those  who  were 
admitted  to  membership,  but  no  local  co-operative  scheme  or 
any  number  of  them  can  ever  settle  labor  troubles. 

Co-operation  by  a  few  hundred  or  a  few  hundred  thousand 
laboring  men  would  be  no  different  in  principle  from  one  of 
our  big  corporations  and  trusts  and  would  be  just  as  objec- 
tionable to  all  who  were  outside  of  it. 

It  would  be  another  private  concern,  only  with  more  mem- 
bers. 

Its  object  would  be  the  same — profits,  shared  only  by  those 
on  the  inside.  That  might  be  a  good  thing  for  them,  but  not 
for  anybody  else.  It  would  not  be  the  complete  thing.  To  be 
complete,  co-operation  must  include  everybody.  Nobody  must 
be  left  outside. 

Any  plan  of  co-operation  that  includes  only  a  part  of  the 
people,  is  too  narroAv  and  selfish  to  bring  industrial  harmony 
and  peace.  Relief  for  a  few  might  lull  discontent  but  it  can- 
not extinguish  it.  It  might  postpone  the  day  of  final  reckon- 
ing but  it  would  have  to  come  after  all. 

All  the  people  must  be  embraced  in  any  co-operative  plan 
intended  to  ameliorate  the  conditions  of  all.  Every  man,  wo- 
man and  child  must,  not  nominally,  but  actually  share  in  its 
benefits. 

If  co-operaion  is  good  for  a  part  of  the  people  it  must  be 
good  for  all,  and  I  submit  that  co-operation  by  a  part  is  dan- 
gerous to  the  welfare  of  all.  Our  modern  trusts,  all  of  which 
are  founded  on  the  co-operative  principle,  are  forceful  illustra- 
tions of  this  truth. 

Therefore,  I  would  like  to  say  to  hired  men,  if  you  go  into 
any  kind  of  co-operative  scheme  among  yourselves,  do  not  lose 
sight  of  the  fact  that  general  co-operation  is  better,  and  let 
your  local  co-operation  be  on  the  ground  of  expediency, 
the  same  as  your  strikes,  to  combat  the  co-operative  trusts  dur- 
ing the  period  while  the  public  mind  is  being  moulded  in  favor 
of  general  co-operation,  and  steadily  work  for  that  end  vour- 
self. 

For  my  own  part,  I  do  not  doubt  the  practicability  of  gen- 
eral co-operation,  to  include  all  the  people,  in  the  production 
and  distribution  of  everything  that  does  or  ever  will  enter  into 
the  life  of  the  human  family. 


154  THE   WAY  OUT. 

THE  MOTIVE  OF  SELFISHNESS. 
CAN  IT  BE  WIPED  OUT? 

Nobody  does  anything  without  a  motive. 
There  is  a  motive  behind  every  act. 
There  is  a  motive  behind  selfishness. 
The  motive  is  gain. 

The  first  motive  of  gain  was  a  desire  to  satisfy  present  needs 
and  it  grew  in  proportion  as  needs  grew  and  the  difficulties  in 
the  way  of  satisfying  them  increased.  This  kind  of  motive  and 
selfishness  has  never  been  considered  mean  or  wrong. 

Later  on,  the  motive  of  gain  was  increased  to  a  desire  to 
provide  for  future  needs  because  of  the  uncertainty  of  being 
able  to  satisfy  them  when  the  time  came.  This  kind  of  motive 
and  selfishness  has  never  been  considered  mean  or  wrong ;  and, 
if  the  motive  and  selfishness  had  never  gone  beyond  these  sim- 
ple and  justifiable  desires,  no  harm  could  have  ever  resulted 
from  anybody's  selfishness,  because  there  has  always  been 
enough  to  satisfy  the  present  and  future  needs  of  everybody 
and  probably  always  will  be. 

But  the  motive  of  some  people  to  gain  did  not  stop  with 
these  desires,  they  soon  developed  wants  beyond  their  needs, 
present  and  future,  and  the  motive  for  gain  grew  as  wants 
grew.  Of  course  the  satisfaction  of  these  wants  beyond  needs, 
that  is,  unnecessary  wants,  meant  that  just  that  much  had  to 
be  taken  from  the  necessary  wants  of  others  and  piled  up  at 
the  feet  of  those  whose  unnecessary  wants  it  satisfied. 

Now,  if  it  would  be  possible  in  one  case  to  trace  this  pile 
back  through  all  those  who  contributed  to  it  from  their  neces- 
sary wants,  and  then  shift  the  whole  burden  on  to  one,  or  more 
according  to  its  size,  we  should  find  at  the  other  end  that  some- 
body, one  or  more,  had  been  pinched  in  his  necessaiy  wants 
in  proportion  as  the  unnecessary  wants  of  the  other  were  satis- 
fied. 

In  many  cases  the  unnecessary  wants  satisfied  would  be 
found  so  large  that  if  a  few  were  obliged  to  bear  it  all  they 
would  be  reduced  to  poverty,  utterly  ruined. 

Suppose  nobody  had  wanted  or  been  permitted  to  get  more 
than  he  needed?  In  that  case  there  would  have  always  been 
an  ample  supply  for  everybody's  needs  and  nobody  would 
be  ruined  or  even  pinched;  but  as  there  never  is,  was,  or  will 
be  a  supply  sufficient  to  satisfy  everybody's  wants,  it  follows 
that,  when  everybody  is  permitted  to  get  all  he  wants,  if  he 
can,  the  shortest  legged  ones  in  the  race  to  supply  wants,  will 
be  likely  to  fall  short  of  getting  even  what  they  seriously 
need,  enough  to  eat. 

It  was  a  long  time  before  the  motive  and  selfishness  that 
made  people  want  to  gratify  wants  beyond  their  needs  was 


THE  WAY  OUT.  155 

considered  mean  or  wrong,  except  by  those  whose  lives  had 
been  a  constant  struggle  to  supply  their  own  simplest  needs, 
and  late  years,  this  class  has  increased  in  numbers  so  rapidly 
(which  was  inevitable),  and  their  discontent  and  protests  are 
so  earnest  and  alarming  that,  "what  is  to  be  done?"  has  be- 
come a  vital  political  problem. 

Has  anyone  a  right  to  want  more  than  he  needs? 

No,,  he  has  a  right  to  want  what  he  needs,  but  no  more. 

If  he  gets  more  than  he  needs  he  has  got  what  someone  else 
needs,  and  he  has  no  more  right  to  what  some  one  else  needs 
than  someone  else  has  to  what  he  needs. 

There  is  only  enough  on  the  earth  for  the  proper  needs  of 
all. 

There  never  was  at  any  time  more  than  enough  for  the 
proper  needs  of  all,  nor  can  there  be,  no  matter  if  the  people 
number  a  dozen  or  a  dozen  billion. 

The  needs  of  a  person  are  not  what  he  can  get  by  "hook  or 
crook, ' '  but  his  proper  share  that  shall  secure  to  him  his  equal 
right  with  every  other  person  to  life,  liberty  and  happiness 
and  an  equal  right  to  develope  according  to  his  natural  ability. 

These  are  his  natural  and  rightful  needs,  and  whatever  is 
necessary  to  him  to  secure  them  he  has  a  right  to  and  cannot 
rightfully  be  deprived  of  in  order  that  the  unnecessary  wants 
of  somebody  else  may  be  satisfied. 

'Every  person  has  a  right  to  make  the  most  of  himself,  but 
nobody  has  a  right  to  make  the  most  of  himself  at  the  expense 
or  sacrifice  of  the  right  of  another  to  make  the  most  of  him- 
self. 

The  whole  people  (as  a  society)  have  a  right  to  rise  together 
that  is,  one  has  as  much  right  as  another  to  rise  to  the  highest 
state  of  perfection  and  happiness  he  is  capable  of  reaching; 
and  the  business  of  the  whole  is  to  see  that  he  has  the  oppor- 
tunity to  do  it  by  protecting  him,  against  his  will  if  necessary, 
in  his  right  to  enjoy  his  proper  share  of  all  that  nature  pro- 
vided for  the  impartial  enjoyment  of  all. 

Therefore,  if  one  has  ability  superior  to  another,  he  has  no 
right  to  use  it  to  deprive  another  of  any  portion  of  his  proper 
share  of  nature's  bounties,  and  the  whole,  for  its  own  protec- 
tion, must  see  that  he  does  not  do  it.  H,e  has  a  right  to  use 
his  superior  ability  to  attain  his  own  perfection  and  happi- 
ness, but  when  he  attempts  to  attain  his  own  perfection  and 
happiness  by  appropriating  the  least  of  what  belongs  to  an- 
other to  enable  him  to  attain  his  perfection  and  happiness, 
then  he  is  wronging  not  only  the  other,  but  the  whole,  and  to 
the  extent  any  one  succeeds  in  doing  it,  he  destroys  the 
balance  necessary  to  be  constantly  preserbecl  for  the  rise,  per- 
fection and  happiness  of  the  whole. 

If  one  is  not  inclined  to  recognize  these  rights  of  all,  society 
(the  State),  at  least,  must  not  help  him  to  wrong  others  (and 
itself)  by  protecting  him  in  his  effort  to  acquire  and  exercise 
exclusive  control  and  dominion  over  material  things  without 
which  it  is  impossible  for  anybody  to  rise.     That  is,  it  is  im- 


156  THE  WAY  OUT. 

possible  for  anybody  to  rise  without  them  or  their  equivalent ; 
and  if  the  equivalent  in  the  ease  of  most  men  must  always 
come  in  the  shape  of  A¥AGES,  because  a  few  are  permitted 
to  own  and  control  all  there  is,  then  it  is  self-evident  that  the 
Avages  they  receive  must  always  be  the  measure  of  the  oppor- 
tunities they  can  afford  to  help  themselves  to  rise,,  the  same 
as  ownership  and  control  of  all  things  enlarges  and  measures 
the  opportunities  the  few  can  afford,  to  help  themselves  to  rise. 

If  the  policy  of  society  is  to  be  that  a  few  shall  be  protected 
in  the  ownership  and  control  of  everything  to  the  exclusion 
of  all  others,  then  its  policy  must  also  be  to  compel  the  few  to 
make  all  they  own  and  control  productive,  give  steady  or  suf- 
ficient employment  to  those  who  own  and  control  nothing  and 
pay  the  wages  that  will  enable  them  to  afford  opportunities  to 
rise  equivalent  to  the  opportunities  possessed  by  the  few  by 
virtue  of  their  protected,  exclusive  ownership  and  control ;  or, 
what  would  be  the  same  thing,  compel  the  payment  of  wages 
equivalent  to  their  productive  ability  if  they  owned  and  con- 
trolled their  own  necessary  share  of  everything. 

This  is  simple  justice,  and  nothing  short  of  the  stern  en- 
forcement of  it  by  society  can  ever  possibly  bring  permanent 
harmony  between  those  who  ow-n  the  earth  (so  long  as  they 
are  permitted  to  own  it)  and  those  who  own  none  of  it,  but  do 
the  work. 

It  is  the  plainest  fact  in  the  world  that  the  earth  is  now- 
owned  and  controlled  by  a  very  few  people  in  comparison 
with  the  whole  number  of  its  inhabitants,  and  that  their  own- 
ership and  control  is  rapidly  concentrating  in  still  fewer 
hands. 

NoAv,  Mr.  Hired  Man,  are  any  great  truths  apparent  to  you 
from  this  condition? 

Do  you  see  that  all  those  who  own  or  control  none  of  the 
earth  must  live  just  the  same,  and  live  on  what  the  earth  pro- 
duces ? 

Do  you  see  that  those  who  own  and  control  it  have  a  motive. 
and  that  the  motive  is,  Profit  and  Power? 

All  right,  now,  who  do  they  expect  to  make  a  profit  out  of 
and  exercise  power  over?  Who  but  you  who  own  nothing 
and  must  work  for  them  in  order  to  live? 

Well,  now  you  are  getting  down  to  business,  down  to  the 
actual  facts  of  the  situation  as  they  exist  and  are  coming, 
namely : 

A  few  own  and  control  the  earth,  and  own  and  control  it 
for  profit  and  power. 

All  the  rest  must  live,  but  are  permitted  to  own  and  control 
nothing,  and  cannot  live  unless  they  live  on  wages  the  owners 
pay  them  for  working  for  them. 

Do  you  see  ?  What  do  you  say  ?  What  will  you  do  ?  Hump 
your  back  and  work  harder?  Of  course  you  will.  You  have 
to.  The  owners  have  no  one  else  to  depend  upon  but  you  for 
profits,  and  they  propose  to  make  you  make  them.  They  own 
evei-ything  and  have  the  power  to  do  it. 


THE    WAY   OUT.  137 

Every  one  of  them  is  interested  in  the  big  game  of  concen- 
tration being  played  aiid  wants  more  profits  to  strengthen  his 
hand. 

With  these  he  buys  out  or  crushes  his  business  rival.  It  is  a 
great  battle  between  them  for  supremacy,  in  which  one  wins 
and  loses  alternately  until  he  drops  out,  and  the  circle  grows 
less.  But  on  one  proposition  they  are  never  at  war ;  they  are 
perfectly  agreed.  It  is  that  the  main  reliance  of  all  for  profits 
is,  and  shall  be,  the  HIRED  MAN. 

He  is  ever  present,  ever  docile,  always  in  their  power,  and 
a  sure  thing  to  fleece — forever. 

Now  let  us  stop  and  sum  up  : 

Let  us  see  what  knowledge  we  have,  if  any,  about  human 
selfishness. 

Let  us  do  so  step  by  step,  as  we  used  to  study  arithmetic ; 
and,  first, 

Is  it  clear  that  the  motive  of  selfishness  is  always  gain? 

Is  it  clear  that  the  first  motive  of  gain  was  to  satisfy 
present  needs;  that  the  next  was  to  satisfy  future  needs,  and 
that  those  needs  were  proper,  and  therefore  there  was  nothing 
mean  or  wrong  in  the  motive  ? 
.  Is  it  clear  that  the  trouble  from  selfishness  began  when  men 
first  began  to  have  wants  beyond  proper  needs  and  sought  to 
satisfy  them  and  were  permitted  to  do  so  ? 

Is  it  clear  that  wants  beyond  proper  needs  are  unnecessary? 

Is  it  clear  that  eveiy  time  the  unnecessary  wants  of  one  per- 
son are  satisfied  they  are  satisfied  out  of  the  proper  needs  of 
another? 

Is  it  clear  that  that  is  never  right  ? 

Does  any  one  think  any  person  (except  himself,  of  course) 
who  has  wants  to  satisfy  beyond  his  needs  is  ever  moved  to  sat- 
isfy them  by  a  motive  higher  than  the  gratification  of  his  own 
vanity?  If  so,  he  will  please  stop,  look  about  and  pick  one  out, 
,iust  one,  whom  he  knows  to  have  satisfied  his  own  wants 
beyond  needs  of  any  magnitude,  i\nth  no  motive  other  than  a 
pure  desire  to  better  the  conditions  of  others,  and  let  me  know. 
I  would  love  to  help  crown  such  a  man  as  a  God  among  men. 

Is  it  clear  that  society  has  an  interest  in  the  welfare  of  all 
and  a  right  to  interfere  and  stop  any  one  who  is  doing  some- 
thing to  wrong  another? 

Is  it  clear  that  nobody  would  want  anything  he  knew  would 
give  him  neither  profit  nor  pleasure,  but  would  be  certain  to  in- 
crease his  cares  and  expenses — "be  an  elephant  on  his  hands?" 


IS  THIS  KNOWLEDGE  OR  A  GUESS? 

The  motive  of  selfishness  is  gain. 

A  motive  to  gain  what  we  need  is  right. 

A  motive  to  gain  what  we  do  not  need  is  wrong. 

Society  has  a  right  to  stop  what  is  wrong. 

Nobody  wants  an  elephant. 


158  THE  WAY  OUT. 


ARE  THESE  FACTS  OR  FANCIES? 

Some  people  are  gaining  more  than  they  need. 

Because  of  it  others  are  losing  what  they  need. 

Society  (you  are  part  of  it)  is  doing  nothing  to  stop  the 
wrong. 

It  (you  help)  encourages  and  upholds  it. 

You  have  noticed  the  bigger  a  hog  is,  the  more  he  is  looked 
up  to  even  by  those  he  drives  from  the  full  trough  hungry. 
They  think  because  he  is  big  he  has  a  right  to  boss  the  swill, 
and,  although  all  want  some  and  could  rush  him  and  take  it, 
they  will  not^  but  stand  around  and  squeal.  When  some  see 
a  chance  to  dive  in  and  grab  a  little  they  do  it,  driving  off 
those  weaker  than  themselves  with  as  little  pity  as  the  boss 
hog  ever  showed  for  them. 

And  so  it  is  with  men.  The  strife  among  them  to  get  their 
rightful  share  or  more,  goes  on  year  after  year,  pig-in-the-pen- 
fashion,  and  with  as  little  thought  of  justice  or  change  of 
program. 


THE  WAY  OUT.  159 


NOW  WHAT  IS   TO  BE   DONE  1    WHAT    CAN  HIRED 

MEN  DO  ? 

I  lay  down  this  proposition  for  them  to  think  about,  namely : 
It  is  useless  to  talk  of  moral  force  as  long  as  the  gate  to  gain 
is  left  wide  open.  As  long  as  it  is  possible  for  one  man  to  gain 
something  by  wronging  another,  just  so  long  will  you  find  him 
trying  to  do  it.  Therefore,  the  gate  to  gain  by  wronging  an- 
other must  be  closed  and  the  only  thing  that  can  be  relied  on 
to  do  it,  is  Law. 

If  courts  were  empowered  to  go  behind  wage  contracts,  as 
they  always  should  have  been,  to  inquire  and  enforce  the  pay- 
ment of  reasonable  wages,  that  would  quite  effectually  close 
that  gate  to  gain  and  wipe  out  the  motive  of  selfishness  it  fos- 
tered, which  is,  to  beat  hired  men  out  of  reasonable  wages. 
But,  if  this  gate  was  closed  at  this  late  day,  after  all  the  wealth 
that  has  come  through  it  and  been  concentrated  in  the  hands 
of  a  few,  would  it  be  effectual  to  relieve  the  people  against 
other  great  wrongs  they  are  forced  to  submit  to  by  reason  of 
such  concentration  f  Would  they  still  be  left  exposed  to  extor- 
tion by  the  greed  of  combinations  that  privately  own  so  much 
of  the  earth  and  its  industries  ?  If  so,  laboring  men,  who  must 
bring  about  reforms  if  we  ever  have  them,  should  be  ready  to 
champion  only  those  which  promise  to  be  sweeping  and  com- 
prehensive enough  to  give  permanent  relief  to  all  classes  from 
every  form  of  industrial  oppression. 

It  is  greed  that  makes  employers  willing  to  wrong  their  hired 
men  out  of  reasonable  wages,  and  courts  favor  employers 
because  judges  owe  their  positions  to  the  politics  they  do. 

Wants  developed  greed  and  greed  developed  rascals. 

As  wants  increased,  greed  increased  and  rascals  multiplied 
until  they  are  now  so  rich  and  powerful  they  control  the  chief 
industries  of  the  earth  and  force  the  workers  to  operate  them 
on  their  own  terms. 

They  have  done  politics  and  fortified  their  possession  and 
control  with  laws  and  courts  until  they  rule  supreme  and  defy 
the  power  of  those  who  toil. 

They  say  when  men  may  work  and  when  they  shall  not. 
They  regulate  wages,  fix  the  prices  all  must  pay  for  what  they 
consume  and  hold  those  in  their  employ  in  such  complete  sub- 
jection to  their  autocratic  will  that,  if  a  few  wake  up  enough 
to  realize  injustice  and  dare  to  squirm,  they  use  the  rest  to  put 
them  down  or  drown  their  protests  with  cheers  for  those  who 
systematically  rob  them. 


160  THE  WAY  OUT. 


THE  BRIGANDS. 

Suppose  brigands  infested  our  mountains,  swooped  down 
occasionally  and  carried  off  what  they  wanted,  would  we  have 
any  doubt  about  what  we  should  do?  Would  we  parley  with 
them  or  send  them  sermons  on  morality  ?  AVould  w^e  send  mis- 
sionaries among  them  to  tell  them  how  wicked  it  was  to  rob 
us  ?  To  tell  them  they  should  be  ashamed,  reform  and  earn  an 
honest  living?  AVould  we  make  a  speech  and  say  to  them, 
' '  Gentlemen,  it  is  all  essential  to  the  continuance  of  our  healthy 
national  life  that  we  should  recognize  *  *  *  the  welfare 
of  each  of  us  is  dependent  fundamentally  upon  the  welfare  of 
all  of  us,"  and  you  should  quit  plundering?  Would  we 
waste  any  time  in  that  way  ?  Not  much  !  We  would  say,  this 
thing  has  got  to  stop  and  stop  right  now ;  we  have  stood  it  just 
as  long  as  we  will;  and  then  we  would  organize  and  sweep 
through  the  mountains,  caves  and  canyons  until  we  had  wiped 
out  or  captured  every  lazy,  plundering,  brigand,  and  put  him 
to  work. 

That  is  what  we  would  do  in  a  plain  case  of  that  kind  and 
we  would  not  be  divided  in  opinion  about  it,  either. 

Is  not  that  right?  And  would  w^e  not  do  it  quickly?  Do 
you  think  it  would  take  us  long  to  decide  that  brigands  were 
not  necessary  to  our  prosperity  and  would  not  be  tolerated  ? 

But  would  it  not  seem  funny  and  ridiculous  to  hear  of  a 
great  populous  country  somewhere  that  was  being  plundered 
by  brigands,  comparatively  a  very  few,  and  the  people  could 
not  decide  what  they  ought  to  do  about  it?  Where  some  were 
always  reading  books  or  listening  to  sermons  and  lectures 
about  how  brigands  ought  to  be  good  and  not  rob  people? 
Where  others  were  contending  that  brigands  were  a  good  thing 
and  others  that  they  were  a  bad  thing  ?  AVhere  some  were  ad- 
vocating that  they  should  be  regulated  and  restrained,  others 
that  they  ought  to  be  wiped  out  and  still  others  that  they 
should  be  encouraged  and  every  body  else  given  the  same 
privilege  to  rob?  And  such  discussions  had  gone  on  for  sev- 
eral generations  without  anything  in  particular  having  been 
done  to  stop  the  outrage,  except  talk,  and  in  the  meantime  the 
brigands  had  grown  stronger  and  bolder  and  taken  part  in 
politics  and  got  control  of  the  Legislature  and  courts  and  were 
defending  their  plundering  career  as  respectable,  lawful  and 
right. 

What  would  you  think  of  the  people  of  that  great  country? 
Would  their  stupid  inaction  amuse  you  ?  I  fancy  so,  and  pos- 
sibly you  would  say  they  deserved  to  be  plundered. 


THE  WAY  OUT.  161 


THE  MOUNTAINEERS. 

Suppose  we  should  hear  of  an  agricultural  people  living 
on  one  side  of  a  range  of  mountains  and  a  pastoral  people  liv- 
ing on  the  other  side. 

The  agricultural  people  raised  only  grain,  vegetables  and 
fruit,  and  the  pastoral  people  only  horses,  cattle  and  sheep. 

In  between  them  on  the  mountains  lived  other  people  who 
raised  nothing  at  all,,  called  the  Mountaineers. 

When  the  Mountaineers  wanted  grain,  vegetables  and  fruit, 
they  made  a  raid  on  the  agricultural  people  and  took  it.  When 
they  wanted  horses,  cattle  and  sheep,  they  made  a  raid  on  the 
pastoral  people. 

When  they  got  more  grain,  vegetables  and  fruit  than  they 
needed  (which  they  always  did)  they  took  it  down  to  their 
agents  among  the  stock  men  to  be  sold  to  them,  and  when 
they  got  more  horses,  cattle  and  sheep  than  they  needed  they 
took  them  down  to  their  agents  among  the  farmers  to  be  sold 
to  them. 

The  stock  men  and  farmers  traded  back  and  forth  among 
themselves,  more  or  less,  but  were  unable  to  sell  quite  as 
cheaply  as  the  agents  of  the  Mountaineers.,  consequently  the 
agents  did  a  large  business  and  soon  had  a  great  many  friends 
on  both  sides  of  the  mountains  among  those  who  dealt  with 
them,  made  big  profits  and  an  easy  living. 

The  stockmen,  who  devoted  their  whole  time  to  their  herds, 
did  not  like  the  arrangement  very  well,  nor  did  the  farmers, 
who  devoted  all  their  time  to  hard  work  and  raising  big  crops. 
The  agents  seemed  always  able,  somehow,  to  i\x  prices  to  suit 
themselves,  and  they  fluctuated  so  much  that  neither  the  stock- 
men nor  farmers  could  ever  tell  whether  at  the  end  of  the 
season  they  would  be  able  to  make  anything  or  not,  no  matter 
how  hard  they  worked  or  how  much  they  had  to  sell. 

This  uncertainty  in  market  values  was  so  plainly  traceable 
to  the  manipulations  of  the  mountaineers  and  their  agents 
that  it  finally  became  a  political  issue  to  detehmine  what 
should  be  done  to  give  relief. 

The  regular  producers  of  horses,  cattle  and  sheep  and  of 
grain,  vegetables  and  fruit,  wanted  the  government  to  take 
hold  of  the  matter  and  do  something  to  put  an  end  to  the  wild 
speculative  methods  of  he  Mountaineers  and  their  agents, 
v>'hich  they  claimed  was  demoralizing  and  ruinous  to  those 
industries.  They  contended  that  "these  people  produce  noth- 
ing themselves,  but  lived  wholly  on  what  others  produce"; 
yet  are  able  through  their  agents  to  push  prices  up  or  down  as 
they  please,  on  what  others  produce,  and  actual  producers 
have  nothing  to  say  about  it." 

It  happened,  though,  that  there  were  two  political  parties 
and  each  claimed  to  be  the  only  reliable  friend  of  the  stockmen 
and  farmers  and  to  represent  the  only  principles  and  policies 


162  THE  WAY  OUT. 

that  ever  would  or  could  give  relief  against  the  Mountaineers' 
system  of  commerce  and  "adequately"  (whatever  that  was 
intended  to  mean)  protect  them.  So  some  belonged  to  one 
party  and  some  to  the  other. 

Every  man  earnestly  believed,  and  with  a  great  show  of 
wisdom  argued,  that  his  was  the  only  sincere  and  honest  party 
fit  to  be  trusted  to  do  the  right  thing  and  he  either  wanted 
to  keep  it  in  power  or  help  it  to  get  there. 

All  wanted  the  same  thing,  but  half  disagreed  with  the  other 
half  as  to  how  to  get  it,  so  the  vote  of  half  alM'ays  offset  the 
vote  of  the  other  half,  which  was  the  same  as  if  neither  half 
had  voted  at  all.  The  importance  of  that  fact,  howevc, 
they  entirely  overlooked  in  their  enthusiasm  for  the  success  of 
"my  party,"  if,  indeed,  they  did  not  feel  it  was  fully  compen- 
sated for  by  the  exercise  of  the  great  American  privilege  they 
all  enjoyed  of  disagreeing  with  each  other,  and  in  the  solemn 
performance,  of  their  sacred  public  duty  as  free  men,  of  having 
it  officially  registered  on  election  day.  Consequently,  they  all 
took  what  they  regarded  as  an  active,  manly  part  in  every 
great  political  campaign  and  loyally  marched  in  their  respec- 
tive party  processions,  each  with  a  torch,  float  or  flag.,  and 
whooped,  hurrahed,  drank,  got  drunk  (the  money  of  the  Moun- 
taineers paid  for  the  whiskey  but  they  did  not  know  it)  fought, 
yelled  and  generally  made  a  day  and  night  of  it ;  their  war-cry 
being :  ' '  Suppress  the  Mountaineers !  Down  with  the  agents  I ' ' 
The  agents,  their  tools,  and  other  hangers-on  of  the  Moun- 
taineers who  made  an  easy  living  by  their  rascally  methods, 
most  of  whom  Avere  classed  as  "Christian  gentlemen,"  be- 
lieved, or  professed  to  believe,  that  the  whole  system  of  the 
Mountaineers  was  a  good  thing  for  the  country  and  should  not 
be  disturbed. 

"The  Mountaineers,"  they  gravely  contended,, "are  capital- 
ists, and  the  prosperity  of  the  country  depends  upon  capital- 
ists. They  are  necessary  even  to  the  stockmen,  and  farmers 
themselves  who  would  be  unable  to  get  their  stock  and  crops 
to  market  without  their  assistance,  besides  they  are  great  con- 
sumers of  what  they  both  produce.  They  give  employment  to 
thousands  of  people  ajid  make  business  that  gives  employment 
to  thousands  more. 

"They  are  enterprising.  Their  system  may  seem  hard  and 
oppressive  at  times,  but  it  keeps  money  in  circulation  and 
makes  things  lively.  It  is  foolish  and  suicidal  in  the  stock  men 
and  farmers  to  wish  to  wipe  out  so  essential  a  factor  in  their 
own  prosperity, ' '  and  so,  all  of  this  class,  always  voted  as  the 
Mountaineers  directed. 

The  Mountaineers,  themselves,  being  capitalists,  nominally 
affiliated  part  with  one  party  and  part  with  the  other  for  the 
purpose  of  being  admitted  to  its  counsels  and  help  shape  its 
platforms  and  nominate  its  tickets.  Beyond  that,  they  were 
independent  and  tied  to  neither,  although  they  put  up  for 
both  and  stood  in  with  the  leaders  of  both ;  depending  on  their 
contributions  to  campaign   funds  to  make  them   solid  with 


THE    WAY    OUT.  163 

either  administration,  no  matter  who  was  elected;  to  see  to  it, 
with  the  help  of  the  senators  \vhose  seats  they  paid  for,  that 
no  policy  should  be  pursued  that  would  in  any  manner  inter- 
fere with  their  free-booting  schemes. 

As  the  vote  of  the  stockmen  and  farmers  for  the  two  old 
parties  always  about  balanced,  their  political  influence  died 
with  the  casting  of  their  ballots  and  the  gi'ievances  they  com- 
plained of  against  the  Mountaineers  A^rere,  therefore,  left  to 
the  Mountaineers  themselves  to  pass  upon,  and  settle. 

Of  course,  the  same  question  was  up  at  the  next  election, 
but  "loyalty  to  party"  gave  the  same  result,  and  so  it  did  at 
the  next,  and  at  last  accounts  the  same  old  issue  was  still  up, 
having  been  passed  on  from  one  administration  to  another 
without  anything  having  been  done  or  any  prospect  that  any- 
thing would  be  done.  , 

The  following  is  a  summary  of  the  regula.r  thing : 

The  Mountaineers  dictated  the  platforms,  but  let  the  stock- 
men and  farmers  think  they  did  it. 

They  actually  selected  all  the  candidates  to  be  nominated, 
but  managed  to  make  the  stockmen  and  farmers  believe  they 
selected  them,  so  they  would  nominate  them  and  vote  for  them. 

The  stockmen  and  farmers  did  all  the  marching,  all  the 
shouting  and  nearly  all  the  voting,  but  the  Mountaineers 
shaped  all  the  policies,  made  all  the  laws,  executed  them  and 
sat  at  all  the  banquets  and  eat  all  the  champagne  dinners. 

Question:  Have  you  foraied  any  opinion  yet  as  to  the 
political  sagacity  of  these  stockmen  and  farmers'?  Or  as  to 
what  must  have  been  the  shape  of  their  heads  ? 

Now,  if  some  one  should  ask  you  "are  there  any  Moun- 
taineers in  the  United  States  like  those  described,  that  is  men 
who  never  produce  anything,  yet  become  very  rich  and  use 
their  money  to  rule  in  politics  and  shape  the  country's  laws 
and  policies  in  their  own  interests  to  exploit  and  oppress  the 
common  people,  what  would  you  say?"  Would  you  say  you 
never  heard  of  any  ? 

If  you  were  asked  "are  there  any  voters  who  complain  of 
being  exploited  by  business  combinations  composed  of  rich 
men,  yet  vote  the  same  tickets  they  do  and  trust  them  to  right 
the  wrongs  complained  of,  what  would  you  say?  Would  you 
say  you  never  heard  of  any  1 

Stop  and  think.  Is  it  your  opinion  that  people  who  know 
they  are  being  robbed  are  wise,  to  keep  on  voting  with  and 
implicitly  trusting  those  who  rob  them  to  make  laws  and  select 
.iudges  and  governors  to  stop  it  ? 

Which  parties  do  you  see  all  the  rich  men  belong  to,  which 
do  they  support  with  their  money?  Which  do  they  vote  with? 
Which  do  they  control  ? 

Do  they  support  a  party  because  they  expect  it  to  help  them, 
or  to  help  some  one  else,  you,  for  instance  ? 

Do  they  expect  the  party  they  belong  to  to  retain  the  sys- 
tem which  enables  them  to  exploit  the  common  people  or  do 
they  expect  it  to  wipe  it  out? 


164  THE   WAY  OUT. 

If  the  rich  support  their  party  because  it  "stands  pat"  with 
their  methods  of  making  money,,  and  their  methods  are  to 
make  it  out  of  the  people  who  do  the  work,  why  should  the 
people  M^ho  do  the  work  vote  for  the  same  party  the  rich  do? 

How  is  it,  any^vay,  that  men  who  produce  nothing  can  man- 
age to  become  capitalists  1 

Oh !  I  see,  they  speculate  on  what  other  men  produce ;  that 
is,  they  manipulate  the  prices  on  what  others  produce  as  did 
the  Mountaineers  and  their  agents  and  get  rich  doing  nothing. 

But  if  one  can  get  rich  doing  nothing  why  can't  everybody? 

Because,  unless  somebody  produces  something  there  would 
be  nothing  to  speculate  in.  It  is  therefore  necessary  that  some 
people  remain  industrious  and  produce  something  before  we 
can  have  capitalists. 

Of  course,  those  who  produce,  necessarily  loose  all  it  takes  to 
make  a  capitalist  and  the  more  industrious  they  are  and  the 
more  they  produce,  (no  matter  what)  the  more  capitalists 
they  make  and  the  more  capitalists  they  make  the  more  they 
loose. 

"Ah,  I  see!"  says  the  producer,  "I  see  how  it  is.  "We  pro- 
duce everything  and  everything  we  produce  produces  capital- 
ists who  take  it. 

"If  what  we  produced  had  produced  no  capitalists  then  we 
should  still  have  the  equivalent  of  all  we  have  produced. 

"As  it  is,  what  we  have  produced,  instead  of  making  us 
rich  has  made  us  poor  because,  in  proportion  as  production 
increased,  capitalists  increased  and  took  it.  They  not  only 
took  what  they  needed,  but  nearlv  everything  we  needed;  and 
worse  still,  they  used  it  to  still  further  head  us  off  from  en- 
joying M^hat  we  may  produce." 

'Exactly  my  friend,  that  is  right.  Your  head  is  level,  and 
this  thing  has  been  going  on  so  long  that  most  of  you  have 
come  to  believe  that  capitalists  were  here  before  producers; 
that  is,  the  child  is  older  than  its  father.  That  Capital  created 
Labor  instead  of  Labor  creating  Capital.  That  if  it  had  not 
been  for  Capital,  Labor,  with  the  soil  free,  would  ba^'e 
starved;  that  if  Capital  should  emisrrate.  nothinsr  could  be 
produced  any  more  and  nobody  could  live,  when  the  truth  is 
that  if  Labor  should  emigrate,  capitalists  would  starve,  or 
have  to  ffo  to  work.  That  if  there  were  no  capitalists  and  none 
bad  ever  been  tolerated,  the  wealth  they  now  call  theirs  would 
be  equally  distributed  among  those  who  worked  hard  and  pro- 
duced it;  and  if  those  who  produced  it  had  even  what  the 
capitalists  have  taken  that  they  do  not  need,  they  would  all 
be  well  fixed. 

Take  Mr.  Carnegie,  for  instance.  How  much  better  off  the 
men  would  be  who  earned  the  millions  he  is  trying  to  give 
away  for  libraries  if  they  bad  been  paid  the  value  of  what 
they  earned  at  the  time  they  earned  it. 
Whose  money  is  he  trying  to  give  away! 
Even  now.  if  he  would  hunt  up  the  men  who  earned  it  and 
give  back  some  of  it,  would  it  not  be  a  far  more  righteous  act 


THE    WAY  OUT.  165 

than  giving  it  to  people  who  earned  none  of  it?  li  he  did  jus- 
tice in  that  way,  how  much  would  he  have  left  to  buy  castles 
with  in  Scotland,  or  libraries? 

I  once  overheard  a  foreigner  ask  an  old  settler  this  ques- 
tion :    ' '  How  is  it,  have  you  any  brigands  in  this  country  1 ' ' 

The  answer  he  got  was,  "of  the  old  sort,  no,"  but  we  have 
corporations  that  can  discount  them  and  win.  I  assure  you 
stranger  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  an  old-time  brigand 
to  compete  with  them  and  feel  sure  of  a  living. ' ' 

I  have  often  wondered  since  if  that  foreigner  caught  on  to 
what  he  was  driving  at;  of  course  you  see  if? 

Now  let  me  ask  you,  Mr.  Hired  Man,  ]Mr.  Producer,  why 
have  speculators  and  capitalists  who  never  produce  anything, 
but  live  on  your  labor,  been  tolerated  so  long  and  why  are 
they  tolerated  now  ? 

Is  it  for  the  same  reason  that  the  stockmen  and  farmers 
tolerated  the  Mountaineers? 

They  did  not  mean  to  tolerate  them  but  voted  with  them 
and  therefore,  for  them  and  so  never  got  rid  of  them. 

What  are  you  doing? 

Suppose  the  stockmen  and  farmers  had  become  class-con- 
scious ;  that  is,  realized  that  they  did  not  belong  to  the  Moun- 
taineer class,  but  belonged  to  a  separate  class,  the  producing, 
industrious  class,  and  had  formed  a.  party  of  their  own, 
voted  together  and  filled  all  the  offices  with  men  of  their  own 
class.    What  then  ? 

Suppose  you  should  do  tliat?    What  then? 

Some  one  will  say,  ' '  they  would  have  sold  out  and  so  would 
you. ' ' 

No  you  would  not.    It  would  do  no  good. 

Why? 

Because  you  would  adopt  the  Initiative  and  Referendum 
system  of  legislation  and  the  Imperative  IMandate  which 
would  put  an  effectual  stop  to  boodling  and  all  that  kind  of 
business. 

Why  don't  the  old  parties  you  vote  with  now  adopt  those 
measures  ? 

Because  that  would  close  a  hundred  gates  to  gain  by  which 
they  rob  others,  and  the  capitalistic  schemers  who  run  the  old 
parties  do  not  want  them  closed. 


]G6  THE  WAY  OUT. 


SHALL  YOUR  CHILDRIEN  BE  MASTERS  OR  SLAVES? 

Think  of  this.  If  a  few  men  may  own  the  earth,  what  hope 
have  all  the  rest  that  their  sons  and  daughters  can  ever  be 
anything  more  than  wage  slaves? 

Is  that  a  nice  fate  to  think  of  for  the  handsome  little  ones 
that  now  rnn  to  meet  you  and  climb  up  on  your  knees  when 
you  come  home  from  your  work? 

If  it  is  possible  for  you  to  figure  out  any  other  fate  for 
them  under  the  present  system,  do  it. 
AVhat  has  been  your  fate  1 
What  are  you  now? 
Are  you  satisfied  ? 
Are  you  sure  of  your  .job  or  Avages  ? 
Would  you  like  better  conditions? 

Would  it  seem  good  to  be  able  to  feel  sure  of  always  having 
employment  at  wages  that  would  enable  you  to  support  your- 
self and  family  properly,  giving  them  the  advantages  they 
ought  to  have.    AVould  it? 

Would  it  make  you  feel  good  to  know  your  sons  and  daugh- 
ters will  be  certain  of  an  opportunity  to  earn  a  good  living 
when  they  grow  up  and  never  need  worry  so  long  as  they  are 
willing  to  do  their  share.    AVould  it? 

Well,  if  you  would  like  that  change,  do  not  be  so  foolish 
as  to  expect  those  who  now  make  a  profit  on  your  labor,  to 
ever  try  to  bring  it  about.  Your  capitalistic  masters  will 
never  emancipate  you  or  your  childrpn  as  long  as  they  can 
make  a  profit  out  of  your  labor  or  theirs. 

You  must  emancipate  yourself  or  you  will  never  be  emanci- 
pated ;  nor  can  you  do  it  yourself  until  you  break  entirely 
away  from  the  old  capitalistic  parties  and  go  into  politics  on 
your  own  account  with  a  party  composed  exclusively  of  your 
own  class;  that  is,  of  toilers,  like  yourself,,  with  not  a  single 
capitalist  in  it;  for  if  he  gets  in,  he  will  only  be  a  wolf  in 
sheep's  clothing  whose  object  will  be  to  perpetuate  the  profit 
system. 

Then,  your  party  must  stand  for  i-eforms  that  shall  give  the 
earth  back  to  the  people. 

Labor  has  always  footed  the  bills  of  o'overnmont.  does  it 
yet  and  certainly  has  a  right  to  see  that  the  goveiTiraent  is 
conducted  on  principles  conducive  to  its  interests,  which  it 
has  not  been. 

It  has  been  a  government  by  capitalists,  for  capitalists  and 
will  be  until  Labor  shall  capture  and  control  it. 
Why  haven't  we  had  a  Panama  canal  long  ago? 
Because  the  railroads  did  not  want  it. 
Why  haven't  we  had  postal  savings  banks? 
Because  private  savings  banks  did  not  want  them. 
Why  haven't  we  had  a  parcel  post? 


THE    WAY  OUT.  167 

Because  express  companies  did  not  want  it. 

Why  has  an  income  tax  always  been  defeated? 

Because  the  millionaires  did  not  want  it. 

But  it  is  not  necessary  to  specify,  you  already  know  all 
these  things,  but  do  you  know  why  capitalists  are  able  to  do 
them? 

Do  you  realize  that  you  helped  to  put  the  power  in  their 
hands  when  you  voted  one  of  the  old  party  tickets? 

Do  you  think  they  care  which  is  elected,  Mr.  Roosevelt  or 
Mr.  Parker,  since  both  stand  for  the  conditions  they  want? 

Will  they  put  up  any  campaign  funds  to  help  elect  Eugene 
V.  Debs,  the  Socialist  candidate  for  president?     Why  not? 

I  do  not  urge  the  labor  class  to  unite  and  vote  wnth  a  party 
composed  of  their  own  class  to  capture  the  government  and 
offices  for  the  purpose  of  wronging  the  capitalist  class,  but 
for  the  pui-pose  of  stopping  that  class  from  wronging  them. 

Power  to  rule  should  be  lodged  in  hands  that  will  use  it  to 
protect  the  masses  instead  of  classes. 

Do  you  know  what  you  want? 

Unless  you  do  you  may  vote  wrong. 

A  vote  is  force,,  and  if  you  vote  for  what  you  do  not  want, 
you  use  the  force  of  your  vote  against  yourself. 

We  have  been  and  are  now  living  under  the  capitalistic 
system ;  that  is,  a  system  where  everybody  is  hoping  and  try- 
ing to  be  a  capitalist,  which  you  know  is  impossible  under 
the  competitive  system,  and  the  few  who  get  there  live  off  of 
the  industry  of  the  millions  who  do  not, 

Now%  are  W'e  silly,  or  are  we  not,  in  continuing  to  want 
that  system  and  keep  on  digging,  making  slaves  of  ourselves 
to  support  it  and  those  who  profit  by  it  when  we  know  it  is 
out  of  all  reason  that  it  will  ever  come  our  turn  to  be  cap- 
italists ? 

Is  it  not  better  to  stop  now  than  to  go  on  slaving  and  wrong- 
ing ourselves  and  everybody  else,  only  to  finally  fail  and  die? 

There  is  only  one  way  we  can  all  be  capitalists,  one  as 
much  as  another,  so  none  will  be  extravagantly  rich,  none 
miserably  poor  and  no  failures;  so  eveiy  life  may  develop  to 
its  best  and  enjoy  its  rightful  share  of  nature's  rich  gifts;  and 
it  would  seem  that  the  "Common  People"  would  much  prefer 
it  to  the  present  uncertain,  worrying,  grabbing  life. 

What  do  you  think  of  it  by  this  time  anyway?  How  much 
have  you  succeeded  in  grabbing? 

How  much  nearer  are  you  now  to  being  a  capitalist  than 
you  were  when  you  started  ? 

Do  you  want  to  continue  the  corrupt  system  you  have 
bucked  against  all  your  life  and  leave  it  for  your  children  to 
buck  against?  Or  would  you  rather  swap  it  off  for  one  under 
which  all  would  be  capitalists ;  one  where  it  would  be  impos- 
sible for  men  wdth  less  conscience  to  get  rich  by  doing  things 
you  would  scorn  to  do?    Think  about  that! 

If  you  are  still  determined  to  hang  on  to  the  present  sys- 
tem and  wish  to  continue  the  struggle  against  such  odds  as 


168  THE  WAY  OUT. 

the  Coal  Trust,,  the  Oil  Trust,  the  xvleat  Trust,  the  Flour 
Trust,  the  Sugar  Trust,  the  Railroad  Combines  and  a  hundred 
others  you  daily  pay  something  to  support,  you  want  to  be 
sure  and  vote  one  of  the  old  party  tickets — it  does  not  matter 
which,  but  if  you  do  not,  and  would  like  to  get  into  a  com- 
bine of  your  own,  one  in  which  you  and  your  children  will 
get  just  as  big  a  rake-off  out  of  the  manufacture  and  trans- 
portation of  things  as  Mr.  Rockefeller,  Mr.  Morgan,  Mr. 
Could,  Mr.  Harriman,  Mr.  Hill,  Mr.  Baer,  Mr.  Spreckels  or 
any  of  the  other  millionaires  or  their  children,  you  must 
loose  no  time  in  getting  into  and  voting  with  a  party  of  your 
own  class;  one  that  stands  uncompromisingly  in  favor  of  the 
people  owning  and  operating  on  their  own  account,,  all  things. 

That  is  your  hope  and  only  hope  of  escape  from  extortion 
by  privately  owned  monopolies. 

That  is  also  your  only  hope  of  saving  your  children  from 
the  certain  fate  of  having  to  work  all  their  lives  at  beggarly 
wages  for  those  monopolists  and  other  profit  takers. 

If  you  help  your  class  to  bring  about  that  reform,  the 
children  of  the  present  generation  of  millionaires  (there  will 
never  be  any  more)  will  stand  no  better  show  for  the  enjoy- 
ment of  Life,  Liberty,  Security  and  Happiness  than  your 
children.  If  your  children  must  work  for  wages  under  the 
new  system,  so  must  theirs. 

How  would  you  like  to  bum  oil  and  coal  from  your  own 
wells  and  mines  at  the  cost  of  production? 

How  w^ould  it  suit  you  to  get  meat,  sugar,  shoes,  etc.,  with- 
out having  to  pay  a  profit  to  a  private  monopoly  or  any  body 
else? 

Would  it  seem  nice  to  ride  on  your  o"\vn  cars,  finished  as 
good  or  better  than  the  present  Pullmans? 

Would  it  not  seem  nice  to  use  your  own  gas  and  electricity 
supplied  at  cost,  and  pay  water  rates  to  yourself? 

Think  of  the  fine  schoolhouses,  good  roads  and  beautiful 
public  parks  you  could  build  and  many  other  things  you 
could  have  with  the  profits  you  now  pay  to  private  individuals 
who  spend  it  in  building  million-dollar  mansions,  parks  and 
drives  for  themselves? 

Think  of  the  long  rides  you  and  your  family  could  take 
and  the  sights  you  could  see  for  the  bare  cost  of  it,  under  a 
Co-operative  Commonwealth  ? 

Think  of  how  many  more  men  and  women  would  be  em- 
ployed to  better  eveiy  branch  of  the  public  service  and  les- 
sen the  danger  of  accidents,  and  that  they  would  be  paid  by 
money  that  formerly  went  to  pay  extravagant  salaries  to  use- 
less private  officials  ? 

Think  of  all  these  things  and  many  others  you  would  ger 
the  benefit  of  by  virtue  of  public  ownership,  and  then  decide 
if  you  wall  vote  to  have  them  or  stand  by  the  old  parties,  let 
the  capitalists  continue  to  skin  you  and  never  get  them? 

Concentration  and  Co-operation  is  perfectly  natural  and 
right  and  can  never  be  stopped. 


THE  WAY  OUT.  169 

The  thing  to  do  is  to  shift  it  from  private  to  public  use 
and  benefit. 

Now  is  the  time  to  "take  the  bull  by  the  horns"  and  do 
something. 

Do  not  let  an  election  pass  without  using  your  vote  to  help 
force  a  change — not  from  one  old  party  to  another,  but  to  a 
party  that  stands  for  those  things. 

Your  vote  will  not  be  wasted  even  if  it  does  not  bring  it 
now.    It  will  be  wasted  if  you  vote  for  what  you  do  not  want. 

A  Co-operative  Commonwealth  will  not  be  likely  to  come  all 
at  once,  but  it  will  come.  Everything  that  is  privately 
owned  by  which  the  public  is  robbed,  is  a  gate  to  private  gain 
at  public  expense  and  it  must  be  closed  and  closed  as  quickly 
as  possible.  Every  time  one  of  these  gates  is  closed,  a  motive 
of  selfishness  is  destroyed. 

The  Capitalist  System  is  the  Profit  System  and  is  supported 
by  a  single  prop.  \ 

The  prop  is,  Profits  on  the  Labor  of  Others. 

Knock  it  out  and  the  system  goes  down. 

Capitalists  will  never  do  it. 

It  must  be  done  by  the  men  they  rob,  and 

THE  WAY  OUT 

is,  that  way  which  will  knock  it  out  completely. 

The    substitution     of     PUBLIC     OWNERSHIP     of    the 
MEANS  of  human  existence  for  Private  Ownership  of  those\ 
means,  will  do  it. 

Nothing  else  can. 

Then,  all  men  would  in  fact  enjoy  their  constitutional,  in- 
alienable right  to  LIFE,  LIBERTY,  SECURITY  and  HAP-    \ 
PINESS.  \ 


4 
i 


4    V- 


THE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 


I 


—■■^        This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


WIT 


I 


Form  L-9-15m-2 '36 


VNIVEK^- 


RNIA 


A' 


LOS  ANGELES 
LIBRARY 


A    ^^- 


REMOVE 


THIS   BOOK  card; 

^X\iLIBRARYQ^ 


r- 


University  Research  Library  --l^ 


